https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60629
--- Comment #6 from Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> --- (In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #5) > The point was to say that some JARs were needlessly scanned, and they could > be filtered out. People go on to complain sometimes that they have 1000s of > JARs in their webapp and it takes too long to start. > > The INFO log explains the JAR filtering part correctly, but the first part > is too convoluted, and the "yet" -> "which" is marginally better, but not > *so* much. I'm not sure who wrote that originally, maybe me who knows. > > -> "JAR scanner did not find TLDs in some JARs. Enable debug logging for > this logger for a complete list of JARs. Skipping unneeded JARs during > scanning can improve startup time and JSP compilation time.". > > That's shorter, is it better ? Yes, it is: "JAR scanner did not find any TLDs in some JARs. ..." It removes the fail-fast implication for me. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
