I have just tested our web application prototype on Netscape 4.7 and there
are no problems
with URL-rewriting and jessionid's.
The servlet container (Resin 1.1.5) picks the right sessions for the right
clients.

We use a mix of hardcoded with dynamic jsessionid insertion, Struts
<html:link> and Javascript generated links on our pages and it works fine.



The following principles were used:

- Hardcoded links: <a
href='http://host/execute/action;jsessionid=<%=session.getId()%>'>Text</a>

- Struts: well it does it by itself.

- JavaScript: call a function with parameter jessionid obtained from session
object and use it to build link. Example:

 function openInfoWin(host, oid, sessionID)
 {
  var hostURL = "http://"+host+";jsessionid="+sessionID+"?oid="+oid;
  window.open(hostURL, "InfoWin", "scrollbars=no, resizable=yes, width=600,
height=800");
 }


We always put the jsessionid right after the URL since it is a path
parameter and *not* a request parameter.
Remember to use semicolon as divider or else it will not be picked up.

Could you provide an example of your nonworking JSP or Java code ?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Alfors" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "struts-user" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 5:12 PM
Subject: session ids cont...


> I.E. 5.0 and 5.5 generate unique session ids for each simultaneous
> browser session.  However, both Netscape 4.7 and Netscape 6 return the
> same Id.
>
> I dont think that URL-rewriting will help in this situation.  If I
> understand URL-rewriting correctly, all that is happening is that the
> session id is being tacked on the end of the request URL.
>
> Has anyone else run into this problem (and hopefully come up with a
> solution?)
>
> One alternative is to generate my own session object with a unique Id
> the frist time the user makes a request.  Then the action controller
> could manage the sessions, while the pages use URL-rewriting to notify
> the action controller which session to use.
>
> I don't particularly care for this solution, so I am hoping that I am
> over-looking something simple.  :)
>
> Pete
>

Reply via email to