You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org> on 2005/10/20 14:43:50 UTC
[JK] Status -- was [VOTE] JK 1.2.15
Hi,
Seems there is low interest on JK 1.2.15 although it resolves
lots of issues compared with released 1.2.14.1 :(
So far, seems only Henri voted +1 (I hope I read his vote
properly).
Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to
be declared as stable that I'm missing?
If not, please, let's vote that since it's the latest
release from CVS, so we can move to the SVN releases and
create a JK 1.3 branch we spoke so many times about.
Regards,
Mladen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: [JK] Status -- was [VOTE] JK 1.2.15
Posted by Peter Rossbach <pr...@objektpark.de>.
Sorry for late response, but I start testing and hope finish the test at
next two days
First testresults at Suse 9.3, Windows XP looks very well
Peter
Mladen Turk schrieb:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to
>>> be declared as stable that I'm missing?
>>
>>
>> I'll try to find cycles to test myself, next week. I know I'm having
>> alot of trouble with the apache 1.3 build on odd architectures, probably
>> because the clash of a libtool-based mod_jk.so.1.2 v.s. non-libtool
>> based
>> httpd 1.3. I'm working on cleaner autoconf against httpd-2.0 already
>> for building mod_ftp, which will probably apply very cleanly here as
>> well.
>>
>
> Fine :)
>
> Anyhow, what should I do, since I've volunteer for a RM?
> I mean, I don't expect to see the 1.3 branch for couple of
> months from now, and the 1.2.14 is unusable on Solaris, so
> we need some action. The 1.2.15 (bugfix) release is the
> only thing that is implementable right now, thought.
>
> Since there was no reactions to the VOTE either pro or
> contra for more then a mont,
> seems to me we are in a serious problem, because
> the developers/commiter interest is blocking the release.
> The final solution is either to bring that to the tomcat pmc,
> and if there is really zero interest on maintaining mod_jk,
> among the current commiters, it should be either shut down,
> or proposed as a new project with a different set of maintainers.
>
> 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: [JK] Status -- was [VOTE] JK 1.2.15
Posted by Glenn Nielsen <gl...@mail.more.net>.
I plan on installing 1.2.15 on FreeBSD 5.3 and Solaris 7 today and
do some minimal testing.
Glenn
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 03:17:56PM +0200, Mladen Turk wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >>
> >>Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to
> >>be declared as stable that I'm missing?
> >
> >I'll try to find cycles to test myself, next week. I know I'm having
> >alot of trouble with the apache 1.3 build on odd architectures, probably
> >because the clash of a libtool-based mod_jk.so.1.2 v.s. non-libtool based
> >httpd 1.3. I'm working on cleaner autoconf against httpd-2.0 already
> >for building mod_ftp, which will probably apply very cleanly here as well.
> >
>
> Fine :)
>
> Anyhow, what should I do, since I've volunteer for a RM?
> I mean, I don't expect to see the 1.3 branch for couple of
> months from now, and the 1.2.14 is unusable on Solaris, so
> we need some action. The 1.2.15 (bugfix) release is the
> only thing that is implementable right now, thought.
>
> Since there was no reactions to the VOTE either pro or
> contra for more then a mont,
> seems to me we are in a serious problem, because
> the developers/commiter interest is blocking the release.
> The final solution is either to bring that to the tomcat pmc,
> and if there is really zero interest on maintaining mod_jk,
> among the current commiters, it should be either shut down,
> or proposed as a new project with a different set of maintainers.
>
> Regards,
> Mladen.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Nielsen glenn@more.net | /* Spelin donut madder |
MOREnet System Programming | * if iz ina coment. |
Missouri Research and Education Network | */ |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Form Authentication
Posted by Patrick Dalla Bernardina <pa...@jfes.trf2.gov.br>.
Hi,
I'm using tomcat as my java web application server.
I'm having a problem with FORM login config.
As I've seen in tomcat source code, FormAuthenticator.java is
responsible for this kind of authentication. FormAuthenticator saves a
request to a protected resource, redirects to form login and, after
login, redirects to the saved request.
My problem is when I create a portlet inside my portal that contains
login form which action is j_security_check. How I haven't accessed any
protected resource, no request is saved before login and when
FormAuthenticator tries to restore the saved request, the following
error occur:
_The request sent by the client was syntactically incorrect (Invalid
direct reference to form login page)._
I've changed the code that send the error to redirect to:
request.getHeader("Referer")
It would be nice to have this functionality implemented in current
Tomcat binaries.
Is it possible?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: [JK] Status -- was [VOTE] JK 1.2.15
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jean-frederic Clere wrote:
> Mladen Turk wrote:
>>
>> Anyhow, what should I do, since I've volunteer for a RM?
Good questions...
>> I mean, I don't expect to see the 1.3 branch for couple of
>> months from now,
well, that's neither here nor there w.r.t. 1.2.x - whoever needs
to do new development (if 1.2 is feature-frozen) should simply branch
already. Since I believe we are ready on the svn side, this is nothing
more than an svn cp .../trunk .../branches/1.2.x
but let's leave 1.3 out of this immediate discussion
>> and the 1.2.14 is unusable on Solaris, so
>> we need some action. The 1.2.15 (bugfix) release is the
>> only thing that is implementable right now, thought.
Agreed, it's time to release a 1.2.15, but this is where the RM's job
is very frustrated, working independently, as opposed to working with the
dev list. I don't remember much chatter before 1.2.15 suddenly appeared,
but when most of the dev@'ers are on different pages, it can take a while
to all get back in sync.
(FWIW - 1.2.15 is going to my QA folks tonight. You probably are aware
that I had almost every free hour invested in the last few weeks getting out
new apr and httpd versions. Sorry that my focus was elsewhere.)
> There are 10 open bug, what about trying to close them before the release?
That's also irrelevant - is 1.2.15 the best available version? If so, let's
release (and if you want to squish 10 bugs in a week, jf, feel free to RM
yet another release then!) The issue (not a problem, unless you are a user
who makes no contribution) is that nobody 'schedules' Apache fixes, each
contributor scratches their own itch. When everything is healthy, this means
that -someone- is likely to see a significant bug squished, or a competent
user steps up to squish it themself and offer a patch.
>> Since there was no reactions to the VOTE either pro or
>> contra for more then a mont,
>> seems to me we are in a serious problem,
Howso? ...
>> because the developers/commiter interest is blocking the release.
That's not a problem, that's a symptom. But you presume it's an unhealthy
symptom...
>> The final solution is either to bring that to the tomcat pmc,
>> and if there is really zero interest on maintaining mod_jk,
>> among the current commiters, it should be either shut down,
>> or proposed as a new project with a different set of maintainers.
Mladen, this is a bit over-the-top :) You know full well...
* you can fork and call your code base mod_jk_mt - nothing wrong with that,
it's under the Apache License. Don't call it mod_jk/Apache Tomcat Connector
and don't host it on apache.org. Don't feel put-upon if such an effort is
not warmly embraced by your fellow contributors, here.
* you can discuss 'why isn't 1.2.15 ready?' on list. Perhaps, as jfclere
observes, that some contributors have an issue with it (note no negative
vote was offered, only a reason why one contributor isn't testing it.)
Discussion is healthy.
* you can employ patience, and ping for more testers. They will likely
come along in due time. Especially Solaris testers. Recent instability
may have scared some off for the time being from testing this, now very
solid, newer code.
* finally, you can consider that, in large measure, mod_jk is 'baked', it's
been stable for years (well, 1.2.6 was), and many have little motivation
to develop/test/deploy a new flavor, if they are happy with their current
installation. This simply means that new releases will take a bit longer
to test, and a bit longer to get feedback 'from the field'.
Believe me, you aren't the first frustrated RM. But a couple-week delay
is hardly cause to sound the klaxons and drop the halon :)
As long as jk serves a purpose, suggesting that it be abandoned isn't the
right answer. Obviously jrun was ditched because it wasn't supported, but
it also was hopelessly outdated by jk. Obviously jk2 was scuttled because
it just didn't measure up to jk, it didn't serve a useful need.
But mod_jk serves a need, has maintainers/committers/reviewers. It's only
a matter of 'sheparding cats' at this point :)
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: [JK] Status -- was [VOTE] JK 1.2.15
Posted by Jean-frederic Clere <jf...@telefonica.net>.
Mladen Turk wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to
>>> be declared as stable that I'm missing?
>>
>>
>> I'll try to find cycles to test myself, next week. I know I'm having
>> alot of trouble with the apache 1.3 build on odd architectures, probably
>> because the clash of a libtool-based mod_jk.so.1.2 v.s. non-libtool
>> based
>> httpd 1.3. I'm working on cleaner autoconf against httpd-2.0 already
>> for building mod_ftp, which will probably apply very cleanly here as
>> well.
>>
>
> Fine :)
>
> Anyhow, what should I do, since I've volunteer for a RM?
> I mean, I don't expect to see the 1.3 branch for couple of
> months from now, and the 1.2.14 is unusable on Solaris, so
> we need some action. The 1.2.15 (bugfix) release is the
> only thing that is implementable right now, thought.
There are 10 open bug, what about trying to close them before the release?
>
> Since there was no reactions to the VOTE either pro or
> contra for more then a mont,
> seems to me we are in a serious problem, because
> the developers/commiter interest is blocking the release.
> The final solution is either to bring that to the tomcat pmc,
> and if there is really zero interest on maintaining mod_jk,
> among the current commiters, it should be either shut down,
> or proposed as a new project with a different set of maintainers.
>
> 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: [JK] Status -- was [VOTE] JK 1.2.15
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to
>> be declared as stable that I'm missing?
>
> I'll try to find cycles to test myself, next week. I know I'm having
> alot of trouble with the apache 1.3 build on odd architectures, probably
> because the clash of a libtool-based mod_jk.so.1.2 v.s. non-libtool based
> httpd 1.3. I'm working on cleaner autoconf against httpd-2.0 already
> for building mod_ftp, which will probably apply very cleanly here as well.
>
Fine :)
Anyhow, what should I do, since I've volunteer for a RM?
I mean, I don't expect to see the 1.3 branch for couple of
months from now, and the 1.2.14 is unusable on Solaris, so
we need some action. The 1.2.15 (bugfix) release is the
only thing that is implementable right now, thought.
Since there was no reactions to the VOTE either pro or
contra for more then a mont,
seems to me we are in a serious problem, because
the developers/commiter interest is blocking the release.
The final solution is either to bring that to the tomcat pmc,
and if there is really zero interest on maintaining mod_jk,
among the current commiters, it should be either shut down,
or proposed as a new project with a different set of maintainers.
Regards,
Mladen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: [JK] Status -- was [VOTE] JK 1.2.15
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Mladen Turk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to
> be declared as stable that I'm missing?
I'll try to find cycles to test myself, next week. I know I'm having
alot of trouble with the apache 1.3 build on odd architectures, probably
because the clash of a libtool-based mod_jk.so.1.2 v.s. non-libtool based
httpd 1.3. I'm working on cleaner autoconf against httpd-2.0 already for
building mod_ftp, which will probably apply very cleanly here as well.
> If not, please, let's vote that since it's the latest
> release from CVS, so we can move to the SVN releases and
> create a JK 1.3 branch we spoke so many times about.
Lesson learned in httpd-land, don't let this stop you. One thing we had
learned, if you don't have a sandbox/new dev branch ready, then lots of
good 'new ideas' get forgotton months later when the new branch is finally
created. Go ahead and branch already, if you don't place the files in the
http://www.apache.org/dist/jakarta/ tree till they are truly ready, users
won't be confused.
Creating http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/ is a good convention for such
snapshots and pre-alpha tarballs, so the bleeding-edge users can begin to
play in that playground.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: [JK] Status -- was [VOTE] JK 1.2.15
Posted by David Rees <dr...@gmail.com>.
On 10/20/05, Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Seems there is low interest on JK 1.2.15 although it resolves
> lots of issues compared with released 1.2.14.1 :(
>
> Do you guys find something that would prevent 1.2.15 to
> be declared as stable that I'm missing?
I found 1.2.15 to be stable under all loads I've been able to throw at
it on Fedora Core 1 and 4, RHEL 3 and SGI IRIX.
I would give it a +1 if I were a committer.
-Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org