| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Bojan Smojver | Aug 28, 2002 6:26 am | |
| Craig R. McClanahan | Aug 28, 2002 9:14 am | |
| John Trollinger | Aug 28, 2002 9:18 am | |
| Craig R. McClanahan | Aug 28, 2002 9:41 am | |
| cost...@covalent.net | Aug 28, 2002 10:03 am | |
| John Trollinger | Aug 28, 2002 10:21 am | |
| Costin Manolache | Aug 28, 2002 10:35 am | |
| Craig R. McClanahan | Aug 28, 2002 10:54 am | |
| Craig R. McClanahan | Aug 28, 2002 10:59 am | |
| Ignacio J. Ortega | Aug 28, 2002 11:24 am | |
| Ryan Lubke | Aug 28, 2002 11:28 am | |
| Bill Barker | Aug 28, 2002 11:28 am | |
| cost...@covalent.net | Aug 28, 2002 12:52 pm | |
| Costin Manolache | Aug 28, 2002 1:52 pm | |
| Costin Manolache | Aug 28, 2002 1:54 pm | |
| Ignacio J. Ortega | Aug 28, 2002 2:05 pm | |
| Ryan Lubke | Aug 28, 2002 3:52 pm | |
| cost...@covalent.net | Aug 28, 2002 4:11 pm | |
| Bojan Smojver | Aug 28, 2002 4:22 pm | |
| Bojan Smojver | Aug 28, 2002 4:45 pm | |
| cost...@covalent.net | Aug 28, 2002 5:01 pm | |
| Bill Barker | Aug 28, 2002 5:43 pm | |
| cost...@covalent.net | Aug 28, 2002 7:11 pm | |
| Bojan Smojver | Aug 28, 2002 8:22 pm | |
| Bojan Smojver | Aug 28, 2002 11:45 pm | |
| Bill Barker | Aug 29, 2002 12:24 am | |
| Ignacio J. Ortega | Aug 29, 2002 6:48 am | |
| cost...@covalent.net | Aug 29, 2002 7:29 am | |
| Craig R. McClanahan | Aug 29, 2002 8:12 am | |
| Ryan Lubke | Aug 29, 2002 9:01 am | |
| Costin Manolache | Aug 29, 2002 9:56 am | |
| Bojan Smojver | Aug 29, 2002 4:10 pm | |
| Ignacio J. Ortega | Aug 30, 2002 6:50 am | |
| cost...@covalent.net | Aug 30, 2002 7:53 am | |
| Ignacio J. Ortega | Aug 30, 2002 10:14 am | |
| cost...@covalent.net | Aug 30, 2002 10:53 am | |
| Ignacio J. Ortega | Aug 30, 2002 11:26 am | |
| cost...@covalent.net | Aug 30, 2002 11:49 am | |
| Steve Downey | Aug 30, 2002 1:27 pm | |
| Ignacio J. Ortega | Aug 30, 2002 1:46 pm | |
| Bojan Smojver | Aug 30, 2002 5:55 pm |
| Subject: | RE: Spec question: RE BUG 12052 | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Ignacio J. Ortega (nac...@siapi.es) | |
| Date: | Aug 28, 2002 11:24:07 am | |
| List: | org.apache.tomcat.dev | |
De: Bojan Smojver [mailto:boj...@rexursive.com] Enviado el: 28 de agosto de 2002 15:27 Para: Tomcat Dev List Asunto: Spec question: RE BUG 12052
of load balancers and firewalls, so it is unrealistic to expect to return port numbers that it doesn't know about. What do you think?
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12052
Other opinions welcome :-)
Nice!!! this bug has surfaced many times in the past, in tc 3.2, 3.3, at least :)), and related or not to connectors.. :).. and i think the first poster on this topic was me long time ago, in late 2000.. :))))..
The port MUST be the one in the Host Header if one is present,and should be present if the request is HTTP1.1 compliant, if no port is present the port must be 80 o 443, regardless of the socket port, that NEVER must be a default for getServerPort, NEVER.. and regardless of the channel which has be used to forward the request to the container.. socket,JNI,. or whatever..
Saludos , Ignacio J. Ortega
-----Mensaje original-----
Craig,
I think this bug report is invalid, since Tomcat/Apache has no knowledge
Bojan
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:tomc...@jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:tomc...@jakarta.apache.org>





