RE: cvs commit: jakarta-tomcat-connectors/coyote/src/java/org/apa che/coyote/tomcat4 CoyoteAdapter.java

["Ignacio J. Ortega" <na...@siapi.es>]

> De: Remy Maucherat [mailto:remm@apache.org]
> Enviado el: 29 de septiembre de 2002 19:32
> 
> -1 for this unless you explain. The idea was to redirect to 
> the default 
> port for the protocol. Bill can probably give additional information 
> (ignore the -1 if he agrees with the change).
> 

Ok, no problem, i feel this code like a swarm :)), but i think that in
any case to get the secure flag from the connector is a nonsense in
ajp13, in addition the flag is never setted in the connector so i doubt
redirections in SSL had worked anytime before with HTTP11, i reviewed
the code at the HTTP1Processor and it sets the scheme and port prior to
that point, just like ajp13 does, so shouldnt have any problems.. But
who knows, waiting for Bill..


Saludos ,
Ignacio J. Ortega


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: cvs commit: jakarta-tomcat-connectors/coyote/src/java/org/apa che/coyote/tomcat4 CoyoteAdapter.java

[Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>]

Ignacio J. Ortega wrote:
>>De: Remy Maucherat [mailto:remm@apache.org]
>>Enviado el: 29 de septiembre de 2002 19:32
>>
>>-1 for this unless you explain. The idea was to redirect to 
>>the default 
>>port for the protocol. Bill can probably give additional information 
>>(ignore the -1 if he agrees with the change).
>>
> 
> 
> Ok, no problem, i feel this code like a swarm :)), but i think that in
> any case to get the secure flag from the connector is a nonsense in
> ajp13, in addition the flag is never setted in the connector so i doubt
> redirections in SSL had worked anytime before with HTTP11, i reviewed
> the code at the HTTP1Processor and it sets the scheme and port prior to
> that point, just like ajp13 does, so shouldnt have any problems.. But
> who knows, waiting for Bill..

Well, that particular part of the code was very tricky to get right, so 
the change is dangerous by itself. I don't have time to look much into 
it (I'll be away for 3 days; someone please handle bugzilla during that 
time ;-)).

I think we should implement proxyPort and proxyHost if it doesn't work. 
That's supposed to be there, and would solve the problem I think, so 
it's better than trying to change working code.

Remy


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>