----- Original Message ----- From: "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 9:47 AM Subject: Re: cvs commit: jakarta-tomcat-connectors/http11/src/java/org/apache/coyote/http11 Http11Processor.java
> Jeanfrancois Arcand wrote: > > Remy Maucherat wrote: > > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >>> jfarcand 2003/12/02 08:27:11 > >>> > >>> Modified: coyote/src/java/org/apache/coyote Request.java > >>> ActionCode.java catalina/src/share/org/apache/coyote/tomcat5 > >>> CoyoteRequest.java http11/src/java/org/apache/coyote/http11 > >>> Http11Processor.java Log: Implement getLocalPort using ActionCode > >>> instead of getServerPort. Associate 1 ActionCode for each getXXX > >>> method. > >>> > >>> Please review. > >> > >> I'll have to vote -0 for implementing getLocalPort as mandated in the > >> specification, since I think this is a huge mistake, and the spec > >> authors intention is misinterpreted (or they didn't think about all > >> the consequences of the wording they used, thinking only about the > >> case of a server without any proxies, or using an AJP-like scheme). > >> BTW, I also think your patch has a sky high likelihood of breaking the > >> JK 2 connector ;-) > > > > Can you explain how? The only changes I did was to remove the code > > associated with remoteAddr (which was duplicated and useless IMO). > > I don't see how JK would set the localPort field (since the new action > isn't handled yet), so I thought it would always return -1. Maybe I'm > wrong, I didn't try it. Yes, the JK connector is going to need some changes to support this. However they should be pretty minor. > > > Make sense.That will also apply to LocalAddr too then. What the specs > > states is: > > > > public java.lang.String getLocalAddr() > > Returns the Internet Protocol (IP) address of the interface on > > which the request was received. > > > > public int getLocalPort() > > Returns the Internet Protocol (IP) port number of the interface > > on which the request was received. > > > > I think parsing/using the Host header is the way to go, since it will > > work with/without proxy. Can I -1 on myself ;-) > > I don't know, maybe you can talk to the Servlet spec people first to see > what they have to say on this issue ? > > Rémy > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) listed above as the intended recipient(s), and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not read, copy, or distribute this message or any attachment. If you received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and then delete all copies of this message and any attachments. In addition you should be aware that ordinary (unencrypted) e-mail sent through the Internet is not secure. Do not send confidential or sensitive information, such as social security numbers, account numbers, personal identification numbers and passwords, to us via ordinary (unencrypted) e-mail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
