DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37302>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37302 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-31 20:46 ------- I did some more testings, the problem happens when the context definition is in server.xml, if the context definition is in its own individual file it works. So there are two solutions to fix this regression : - fix the bug by reintroducing the rule or finding another technical solution. - update the documentation by changing this sentence "Please note that for tomcat 5, unlike tomcat 4.x, it is NOT recommended to place <Context> elements directly in the server.xml file" by "Please note that for tomcat 5.5, unlike tomcat 4.x, it is NOT SUPPORTED to place <Context> elements directly in the server.xml file" As written in the changelog this removal was based on the feelings that this rule was useless and that "maybe it used to be useful", so yes it was very useful before Tomcat 5, when defining context in server.xml was the recommended way. >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >r303856 | remm | 2005-04-15 01:58:46 -0700 (Fri, 15 Apr 2005) | 4 lines >- I don't see the purpose of the copy CL rule, as >ContainerBase.getParentClassLoader will return the parent class loader anyway. >If a custom parent is set, the rule will dumbly override it, thus it seems it >never serves a useful purpose. Maybe it used to be useful. Bruno -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
