You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2006/03/16 16:16:35 UTC
Re: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38984
I'm thinking... the behavior we want is that non-Windows
OSs want the APR_SO_REUSEADDR before the bind; Windows
wants it after. So checking for (OS.IS_UNIX) at
one point (for the former) and then (OS.IS_WIN32 || OS.IS_WIN64)
(for the later) is misleading, and doesn't match what
we do elsewhere. So why not make the former test
!(OS.IS_WIN32 || OS.IS_WIN64)
instead? This should also fix the MacOS bug as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38984
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
Peter Rossbach wrote:
> The current os.c patch works well at mac os x. and currently the IS_UNIX
> flag is enough.
>
> But my research for more mac os x system info is hard. Help is needed...
>
Rainer made initial implementation for linux and solaris,
so he might have some ideas. Although this is pretty platform
specific, because it involves lot's of syscalls.
Anyhow, it's not operationally critical so, any time is
a good time :)
Regards,
Mladen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38984
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Mar 17, 2006, at 5:27 AM, Peter Rossbach wrote:
> The current os.c patch works well at mac os x. and currently the
> IS_UNIX
> flag is enough.
>
> But my research for more mac os x system info is hard. Help is
> needed...
>
ping me offline about OSX/Darwin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38984
Posted by Peter Rossbach <pr...@objektpark.de>.
The current os.c patch works well at mac os x. and currently the IS_UNIX
flag is enough.
But my research for more mac os x system info is hard. Help is needed...
Thanks
peter
Am 17.03.2006 um 11:10 schrieb Mladen Turk:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I'm thinking... the behavior we want is that non-Windows
>> OSs want the APR_SO_REUSEADDR before the bind; Windows
>> wants it after. So checking for (OS.IS_UNIX) at
>> one point (for the former) and then (OS.IS_WIN32 || OS.IS_WIN64)
>> (for the later) is misleading, and doesn't match what
>> we do elsewhere. So why not make the former test
>> !(OS.IS_WIN32 || OS.IS_WIN64)
>> instead? This should also fix the MacOS bug as well.
>
> Now that flags are correctly initialized, there is no need
> for that. MacOS will be reported as 'IS_UNIX'.
> Of course we can add IS_MACOS once when Peter finishes
> MacOS system info, but it will still be reported as IS_UNIX
> beside IS_MACOS, just like IS_LINUX or IS_SOLARIS.
>
> We can change the later test for
> (OS.IS_WIN32 || OS.IS_WIN64) to !OS.IS_UNIX
> but it wouldn't change anything functional.
>
>
> Regards,
> Mladen.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38984
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
Yoav Shapira wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> Alright, I'll cut out 5.5.17. When is the earliest time that's good
>>> for you, i.e. you (everyone who's been discussing the native issues)
>>> feel comfortable me cutting a release from trunk?
>>>
>> We would need to resolve (i.e. revert :) JFC's Jasper patch before a
>> release. The current Jasper in trunk is badly broken, so I'd have to vote
>> -1 on any release that contains the patch.
>
> Yeah, I was thinking that might be the case. That's why I asked if
> trunk is in a decent state ;) I'm not going to cut a release before
> we arrive at some sort of consensus...
It seems the 5.5.16 .exe examples are partially corrupted, or something
like it.
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38984
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Hi,
> > Alright, I'll cut out 5.5.17. When is the earliest time that's good
> > for you, i.e. you (everyone who's been discussing the native issues)
> > feel comfortable me cutting a release from trunk?
> >
>
> We would need to resolve (i.e. revert :) JFC's Jasper patch before a
> release. The current Jasper in trunk is badly broken, so I'd have to vote
> -1 on any release that contains the patch.
Yeah, I was thinking that might be the case. That's why I asked if
trunk is in a decent state ;) I'm not going to cut a release before
we arrive at some sort of consensus...
Yoav
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38984
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Mar 17, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Remy Maucherat wrote:
> Yoav Shapira wrote:
>> Alright, I'll cut out 5.5.17. When is the earliest time that's good
>> for you, i.e. you (everyone who's been discussing the native issues)
>> feel comfortable me cutting a release from trunk?
>
> -0. These are quite minor issues: definitely no reason to do a new
> release.
>
> About the rebinding issues, this is quite funny, I remember asking
> for explanations to Mladen and Jim (who did apply a patch for it in
> the native code, as far as I can remember, but it's not in tcnative
> 1.1.2), and was ignored.
>
Different issue. The recent issue had to do with init's and re-inits
of OS data fields.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38984
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> About the rebinding issues, this is quite funny, I remember asking for
> explanations to Mladen and Jim (who did apply a patch for it in the
> native code, as far as I can remember, but it's not in tcnative 1.1.2),
> and was ignored.
The problem was in OS.java, not in native.
OS.IS_UNIX was always false due to faulty initialization of fields,
so the reuseaddr was never called.
--
Mladen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38984
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
Yoav Shapira wrote:
> Alright, I'll cut out 5.5.17. When is the earliest time that's good
> for you, i.e. you (everyone who's been discussing the native issues)
> feel comfortable me cutting a release from trunk?
-0. These are quite minor issues: definitely no reason to do a new release.
About the rebinding issues, this is quite funny, I remember asking for
explanations to Mladen and Jim (who did apply a patch for it in the
native code, as far as I can remember, but it's not in tcnative 1.1.2),
and was ignored.
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
RE: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38984
Posted by Bill Barker <wb...@wilshire.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: yoavshapira@gmail.com [mailto:yoavshapira@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Yoav Shapira
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 9:16 AM
> To: Tomcat Developers List
> Subject: Re: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38984
>
> Alright, I'll cut out 5.5.17. When is the earliest time that's good
> for you, i.e. you (everyone who's been discussing the native issues)
> feel comfortable me cutting a release from trunk?
>
We would need to resolve (i.e. revert :) JFC's Jasper patch before a
release. The current Jasper in trunk is badly broken, so I'd have to vote
-1 on any release that contains the patch.
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: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38984
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Alright, I'll cut out 5.5.17. When is the earliest time that's good
for you, i.e. you (everyone who's been discussing the native issues)
feel comfortable me cutting a release from trunk?
Yoav
On 3/17/06, Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org> wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> >
> > Oh. I had thought that someone said that MaxOS did NOT
> > report itself as IS_UNIX (which would itself be a bug).
> > If that is no longer the case, then the MacOS side-benefit
> > is moot.
>
> Right, and with the latest patch to the OS.java there is
> no more 'Address already in use ...' error.
>
> I've send the new tomcat-apr.jar to Stephan Faust,
> and he confirmed that the error has gone.
> (see Tomcat users list)
>
> Perhaps one reason more for 5.5.17
>
> Regards,
> Mladen.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
--
Yoav Shapira
Nimalex LLC
1 Mifflin Place, Suite 310
Cambridge, MA, USA
yoavs@computer.org / www.yoavshapira.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38984
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>
> Oh. I had thought that someone said that MaxOS did NOT
> report itself as IS_UNIX (which would itself be a bug).
> If that is no longer the case, then the MacOS side-benefit
> is moot.
Right, and with the latest patch to the OS.java there is
no more 'Address already in use ...' error.
I've send the new tomcat-apr.jar to Stephan Faust,
and he confirmed that the error has gone.
(see Tomcat users list)
Perhaps one reason more for 5.5.17
Regards,
Mladen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38984
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Mar 17, 2006, at 5:10 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I'm thinking... the behavior we want is that non-Windows
>> OSs want the APR_SO_REUSEADDR before the bind; Windows
>> wants it after. So checking for (OS.IS_UNIX) at
>> one point (for the former) and then (OS.IS_WIN32 || OS.IS_WIN64)
>> (for the later) is misleading, and doesn't match what
>> we do elsewhere. So why not make the former test
>> !(OS.IS_WIN32 || OS.IS_WIN64)
>> instead? This should also fix the MacOS bug as well.
>
> Now that flags are correctly initialized, there is no need
> for that. MacOS will be reported as 'IS_UNIX'.
> Of course we can add IS_MACOS once when Peter finishes
> MacOS system info, but it will still be reported as IS_UNIX
> beside IS_MACOS, just like IS_LINUX or IS_SOLARIS.
>
Oh. I had thought that someone said that MaxOS did NOT
report itself as IS_UNIX (which would itself be a bug).
If that is no longer the case, then the MacOS side-benefit
is moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38984
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I'm thinking... the behavior we want is that non-Windows
> OSs want the APR_SO_REUSEADDR before the bind; Windows
> wants it after. So checking for (OS.IS_UNIX) at
> one point (for the former) and then (OS.IS_WIN32 || OS.IS_WIN64)
> (for the later) is misleading, and doesn't match what
> we do elsewhere. So why not make the former test
>
> !(OS.IS_WIN32 || OS.IS_WIN64)
>
> instead? This should also fix the MacOS bug as well.
>
Now that flags are correctly initialized, there is no need
for that. MacOS will be reported as 'IS_UNIX'.
Of course we can add IS_MACOS once when Peter finishes
MacOS system info, but it will still be reported as IS_UNIX
beside IS_MACOS, just like IS_LINUX or IS_SOLARIS.
We can change the later test for
(OS.IS_WIN32 || OS.IS_WIN64) to !OS.IS_UNIX
but it wouldn't change anything functional.
Regards,
Mladen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org