Here is why I have discovered from searching the tomcat-user archives.

During the first request to the server, there is no JSESSIONID cookie.
Because of this calls to encodeURL() will append ;jsessionid=xxxxx to
the end of the URL.  Tomcat (and other app servers) know how to handle
this.  

Since Tomcat knows how to handle the ;jsessionid=xxxx but Apache does
not, this is why I had the problem on all servers where Apache served as
a front end to Tomcat.  In my configuration, requests that have
"/servlet/" as part of the URL will be forwarded to Tomcat.  Other URLS
for things such as stylesheets, images, etc will be handled by Apache.  

The Apache server can still be configured to properly handle these URLS
in one of two ways.  First, you can use URL rewriting to "fix" the URL.
The downside to this is that you will get two hits on the Apache server
due for every URL with ;jsessionid=xxxxx.  The other way is to make
Apache also forward all requests which have ";jsessionid=" in the URL to
Tomcat.

The links below are to a few discussions about the nature of when
jsessionid is appended to the URL and how to configure Apache to handle
the URLS properly.

http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg84936.html

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&frame=right&;
th=659de1293fa4e814&seekm=92dh6a%2472j%2403%241%40news.t-online.com#link
4



--------------------------------------------
Quinton McCombs
NequalsOne - HealthCare marketing tools
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.NequalsOne.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henning P. Schmiedehausen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 1:20 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Possible problem with the new URI code
> 
> 
> "Quinton McCombs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> >> If this really is a container problem, then we should think
> >> about adding a property for the content tool to never encode 
> >> the jsession id (just as the old 2.2 code did).
> 
> >Allowing ContentTool to be configured not to call 
> encodeURL() has fixed 
> >my problem.  I posted a separate message to the dev list with an 
> >approach to allow configurable tools.  Assuming this is approach is 
> >agreeable to everyone, I will commit the changes.
> 
> Good to hear, but we should check if we're simply working 
> around a container bug or if we just did something "not 
> allowed" by sending all the URLs through encodeURL. And then 
> document the outcome. IMHO, you stepped on a bug in your container.
> 
>       Regards
>               Henning
> 
> > 
> >> Hm. One more item on my todo list. :-/
> >> 
> >>    Regards
> >>            Henning
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen          
> INTERMETA GmbH
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]        +49 9131 50 654 0   
> http://www.intermeta.de/
> >> 
> >> Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, 
> xSP Consulting, Web Services
> >> freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development  -- 
> hero for hire
> >> 
> >> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> 
> 
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> -- 
> Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen          INTERMETA GmbH
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]        +49 9131 50 654 0   http://www.intermeta.de/
> 
> Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services 
> freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development  -- hero for hire
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to