Remy Maucherat wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Sep 14, 2007, at 2:49 PM, Costin Manolache wrote:
It may also have some implications on other use cases - deployment (
the
current pattern
is that all files for a webapp are in one place ), replication (
i.e. if
someone wants same webapps
on a pool of servers ).
To me this is an important point... the beauty of
webapps is that, well, they are self contained.
But I can also easily see the advantage, from an admin
and even developer PoV for more flexibility.
Basically, of course, Aliases are runtime configurations
of what could be done via file-system provided symlinks...
So the security and API issues should see what, if anything,
can be gleamed from that...
Yes, this is hard to compare to httpd, as in the case of Tomcat, there
is precise specification which defines a portable web application
packaging. I see the latest changes have all aimed at breaking
portability, and I don't like that at all.
I don't subscribe to this point of view, basically, if that was the
case, we wouldn't have META-INF/context.xml as a feature either (as just
one example).
Portability is not something that is enforced by Tomcat, but by the
spec. So if a user writes a portable webapp on weblogic, then the spec
(and tomcat) make that webapp being able to run on Tomcat. and the other
way around. However, pretty much every single servlet engine, Tomcat
included, does add additional features, useful to the users for the
frameworks.
If Tomcat didn't have any custom features, then it wouldn't be half as
popular as it is today.
Writing a portable webapp, is doable, and essentially has nothing to do
with the optional feature set in Tomcat. If you want a portable webapp,
simply don't use the non portable features in Tomcat.
Filip
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
