[Patch] Additional requested session id conditions

[David Erickson]

Hi everyone,
Firstly thanks for developing such a useful filter, it has saved us a
lot of hassle. Second, I have included a patch with tests and
documentation that adds the following condition checks:

-requested-session-id-from-cookie
-requested-session-id-from-url
-requested-session-id-valid

They check the corresponding methods on the request object. Our use
case is that Google has indexed URLs on our website containing
jsessionid, we would like to get rid of them immediately, thus we need
their indexer to try and crawl them, and be permanently redirected to
the corresponding URL without jsessionid in it. The problem is that
Tomcat 5.5 hides the jsessionid from the getRequestURI and
getRequestURL methods on the request object, thus we cannot detect its
presence via a simple regex. Thus the only way to detect jsessionid
in the URL is to check if isRequestedSessionIdFromCookie is true, then
do a permanent redirect to the presented URL, which will automatically
clear jsessionid because Tomcat hid it from us. An example is
provided in the documentation.

Hope this is useful to others!

Thanks,
David Erickson

[Wim De Smet]

Hi David,

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:28 AM, David Erickson <halcy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Firstly thanks for developing such a useful filter, it has saved us a
> lot of hassle. Second, I have included a patch with tests and
> documentation that adds the following condition checks:
>
> -requested-session-id-from-cookie
> -requested-session-id-from-url
> -requested-session-id-valid

This looks quite useful. I'm not an uwf developer but I think patches
are usually tracked through the google code site
(http://urlrewritefilter.googlecode.com). Perhaps you could also
create an Issue/enhancement there?

On a sidenote, are any of these patches going to make it into a
release at some point? I think Avlesh is currently the only active
developer of the project?

regards,
Wim

[Avlesh Singh]

This looks quite useful. I'm not an uwf developer but I think patches
are usually tracked through the google code site
(http://urlrewritefilter.googlecode.com). Perhaps you could also
create an Issue/enhancement there?

Yes, you are right. This is the only way for patches to make their way into the code base.

On a sidenote, are any of these patches going to make it into a
release at some point? I think Avlesh is currently the only active
developer of the project?

Yes, all patches which are accepted, reviewed and applied will make their way into the next release. The next release is not planned. As soon as some major bug fixes or enhancements happen, next release would be scheduled.

Cheers
Avlesh

regards,
Wim

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UrlRewrite" group.
To post to this group, send email to urlre...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to urlrewrite+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/urlrewrite?hl=en.

[David Erickson]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Avlesh Singh <avl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This looks quite useful. I'm not an uwf developer but I think patches
>> are usually tracked through the google code site
>> (http://urlrewritefilter.googlecode.com). Perhaps you could also
>> create an Issue/enhancement there?
>
> Yes, you are right. This is the only way for patches to make their way into
> the code base.

Added an issue 57, I couldn't see a way for me to classify it as an
enhancement, I assume that is something only project admins can do.

Thanks,
David

[Avlesh Singh]

Your patch has been acted upon - http://code.google.com/p/urlrewritefilter/issues/detail?id=57#c1

Cheers
Avlesh