[MAGNOLIA-2610] ability to use unqualified server names in properties resolution Created: 31/Jan/09 Updated: 23/Jan/13 Resolved: 31/Jan/10 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Magnolia |
| Component/s: | core |
| Affects Version/s: | 4.0 |
| Fix Version/s: | 4.3 |
| Type: | Improvement | Priority: | Major |
| Reporter: | Fabrizio Giustina | Assignee: | Fabrizio Giustina |
| Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Template: |
|
| Acceptance criteria: |
Empty
|
| Task DoD: |
[ ]*
Doc/release notes changes? Comment present?
[ ]*
Downstream builds green?
[ ]*
Solution information and context easily available?
[ ]*
Tests
[ ]*
FixVersion filled and not yet released
[ ] 
Architecture Decision Record (ADR)
|
| Date of First Response: |
| Description |
|
The server name resolved in MgnlServletContextListener.initServername() is usually a not qualified hostname ("hostname" and not "hostname.domain.com"), but sometimes seems that InetAddress.getLocalHost().getHostName() can also return a fully qualified hostname with the domain (not really sure about the logic behind it, I've seen different behaviour on similarly configured linux machines). I think it will be better to always force an unqualified hostname, so that the behavior is more predictable... |
| Comments |
| Comment by Fabrizio Giustina [ 01/Feb/09 ] |
|
fixed in svn |
| Comment by Magnolia International [ 03/Feb/09 ] |
|
Reopening this issue. We can't fix this now, as this might break existing installations. |
| Comment by Fabrizio Giustina [ 08/Feb/09 ] |
|
> Reopening this issue. We can't fix this now, as this might break existing installations. Isn't it better to do that in a major release such 4.0 so? Since 4.0 already breaks backward compatibility with several APIs I thinks this is really a minor change compared to that... making the hostname resolution work in a clear way is surely a need, do you think this really could be a problem? I really would for committing this, adding a new property such as "magnolia.servername.unqualified" for this just adds confusion and will leave the old less clear way as the default... WDYT? |
| Comment by Magnolia International [ 10/Feb/09 ] |
|
I wouldn't have objected at all if it had happened earlier, but not between RCs. |
| Comment by Fabrizio Giustina [ 10/Feb/09 ] |
|
Another option: |
| Comment by Magnolia International [ 10/Feb/09 ] |
|
That is exactly what I meant |
| Comment by Fabrizio Giustina [ 31/Jan/10 ] |
|
In order to avoid breaking any existing behaviour, I just added a new optional context parameter "magnolia.unqualified.server.name", for a switch. |