10 messages in org.apache.tomcat.devRe: Embeded Tomcat using a Connector ...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Olivier Lamy | Oct 9, 2011 7:08 am | |
| Mark Thomas | Oct 9, 2011 9:39 am | |
| Olivier Lamy | Oct 9, 2011 10:37 am | |
| Konstantin Kolinko | Oct 9, 2011 3:58 pm | |
| Olivier Lamy | Oct 14, 2011 1:27 am | |
| Henri Gomez | Oct 14, 2011 1:34 am | |
| Konstantin Kolinko | Oct 14, 2011 4:33 am | |
| Mark Thomas | Oct 14, 2011 4:35 am | |
| Olivier Lamy | Oct 14, 2011 5:40 am | |
| Konstantin Kolinko | Oct 14, 2011 5:57 am |
| Subject: | Re: Embeded Tomcat using a Connector with a random port (port 0) | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Olivier Lamy (ola...@apache.org) | |
| Date: | Oct 14, 2011 5:40:46 am | |
| List: | org.apache.tomcat.dev | |
2011/10/14 Mark Thomas <mar...@apache.org>:
On 14/10/2011 09:27, Olivier Lamy wrote:
2011/10/10 Konstantin Kolinko <knst...@gmail.com>:
2011/10/9 Olivier Lamy <ola...@apache.org>:
tomcat.getConnector().setPort( 0 );
1) Look at how TomcatBaseTest assigns subsequent port numbers, starting with 8001.
2) While the proposed feature may have some usage, I think that I would want more control in what range the opened port number will be.
Just setting a "0" would not provide such control.
3) There are several Connector/Endpoint implementations in Tomcat. While java.net.ServerSocket does support port number of "0", I am not sure that APR-based implementation does allow it.
Sure but the use case is just to start a http/https (apr can be omitted) connector on any random free port, do some unit test and stop it.
Consistency of behaviour and configuration across the connectors is important. Where there are differences, we should be looking to converge, not diverge. Agree. Makes sense.
IMHO it's a valid use case (and with it folks will be able to use tomcat rather than an other servlet container which has this feature available :-) ). See the code snippet I have pointed, the code to write for using tomcat is really smaller/smarter (except all hacking I have to write due to the restriction on port).
An additional issue is that not specifying a port in server.xml will result in 0 being used which would then result in a random port being bound. I don't like that at all. I much prefer the current behaviour of throwing an error.
If binding to a random port is to be supported I think it needs to be an explicit choice - e.g. by setting a special value such as "auto" - and ideally needs to be supported by all connectors.
This new auto attribute sounds a good solution to me. Do we agree on the fact that after been started, the protocol handler will update the connector.port field to make the real port used available for use ? I have opened https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52028 and will try to propose a patch next week.
Thanks
-- Olivier
In summary, I think the minimum I would find acceptable is: - use a special value - support for BIO and NIO
Ideally, APR needs to be supported to.
Mark