I think I found the issue. This is totally my mistake...
When I had deployed the web application, I had it in a folder
(www.site). Yet, when I created the Tomcat instance, I named that
www.site.com. I think that was my issue. It does realize that it's
from the same web app, but I had naming conflicts, and therefore it was
confused.
Lesson: Just make sure that the naming convention used is consistent.
--
Martin Gainty wrote:
> If the log4j classes are not specifically located in
> /usr/local/apache/vhosts/www/webapps/DHS
> then You need to grant a minimum of read,execute access to Log4j librariesin
> catalina.policy
> //lets assume you dropped your log4j.jar in %CATALINA_HOME%/shared/lib
> //catalina.policy
> grant codeBase "file:${catalina.home}/shared/lib/log4j.jar" {
> permission java.util.PropertyPermission "org.apache.log4j.*",
> "read,execute";";
> };
> M-
> *********************************************************************
> This email message and any files transmitted with it contain confidential
> information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is
> addressed. If you have received this email message in error, please notify
> the sender immediately by telephone or email and destroy the original
> message without making a copy. Thank you.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryan Daly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Martin Gainty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Tomcat Users List" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 4:03 PM
> Subject: Re: java.util.PropertyPermission
>
>
>
>> Sure. I have the following in my policy file:
>>
>> // ========== DHS ==========
>> grant codeBase "file:/usr/local/apache/vhosts/www/webapp/DHS/-"
>> {
>> // Runtime permissions
>> permission java.util.PropertyPermission "*", "read,write";
>> permission java.lang.RuntimePermission "accessDeclaredMembers";
>> permission java.lang.RuntimePermission "defineClassInPackage.java.lang";
>> permission java.lang.RuntimePermission "stopThread";
>> permission java.lang.RuntimePermission "setContextClassLoader";
>> permission java.lang.reflect.ReflectPermission "suppressAccessChecks";
>> };
>>
>> Yet, in catalina.out, I see:
>>
>> access: access denied (java.util.PropertyPermission
>> log4j.defaultInitOverride read)
>> --
>>
>> Martin Gainty wrote:
>>
>>> can you provide the specific example where a webapp doesnt apply
>>> permissions from catalina.policy
>>> M-
>>> *********************************************************************
>>> This email message and any files transmitted with it contain confidential
>>> information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is
>>> addressed. If you have received this email message in error, please notify
>>> the sender immediately by telephone or email and destroy the original
>>> message without making a copy. Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Ryan Daly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "Tomcat Users List" <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: "Propes, Barry L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:34 PM
>>> Subject: Re: java.util.PropertyPermission
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm not following what you're suggesting.
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Propes, Barry L wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> isn't that because the permission object picks all of that up as one
>>>>> item, and overrides your separate setting?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would think it would. Wouldn't you need to create an entire new object
>>>>> or not for that to work?
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Ryan Daly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:01 PM
>>>>> To: Tomcat Users List
>>>>> Subject: java.util.PropertyPermission
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have started seeing problems with using the
>>>>> java.util.PropertyPermission setting in the catalina.policy file.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have the following line:
>>>>>
>>>>> permission java.util.PropertyPermission "*", "read,write";
>>>>>
>>>>> If that's in my policy entry for the specific web application, it does
>>>>> not get picked up. If I have that in the area that gets applied to all
>>>>> web applications, it seems to work just fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone else seen this? Is this a bug or did something change that
>>>>> would make me have to modify the policy file in some way?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To start a new topic, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To start a new topic, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To start a new topic, e-mail: [email protected]
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To start a new topic, e-mail: [email protected]
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
