Ralph Goers pisze:
What am I missing? All of these syntaxes look invalid to me. Why isn't
the syntax of the normal form
protocol://[servername[:port]]/path
From the discussions it isn't obvious to me if the block name should be
the server name or part of the path.
It could be a server name if we are referencing blocks (servlets) by their
bean's IDs. One of requirement for construct:
protocol://[servername[:port]]/path
is that it is an absolute path, globally unique. The problem is with servlets referenced by their local aliases (connection names). As far
as I understand RFC 1808[1] this is a proper URL:
protocol:connection_name:/path is a proper URL?
So we could have:
servlet:connection_name:/path
for relative URLs and
servlet://bean_ID:/path
for absolute URLs
WDYT?
--
Grzegorz Kossakowski
http://reflectingonthevicissitudes.wordpress.com/
