On 07/06/2011 20:24, Jess Holle wrote: > web apps whose web.xml does not specify distributable should certainly > not be treated as such -- that would be a spec violation and break lots > of web apps.
How many times do I have to write this? This is NOT what is being proposed. All the proposed change does is fix a regression that prevents *any* web application for declaring itself as distributable. Mark > > On 6/7/2011 2:08 PM, Christopher Schultz wrote: >> Mark, >> >> On 6/7/2011 2:36 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: >>> On 07/06/2011 19:30, Christopher Schultz wrote: >>>> Keiichi, >>>> >>>> On 6/7/2011 7:37 AM, Keiichi Fujino wrote: >>>>> Index: conf/web.xml >>>>> =================================================================== >>>>> --- conf/web.xml (revision 1127122) >>>>> +++ conf/web.xml (working copy) >>>>> @@ -4176,4 +4176,6 @@ >>>>> <welcome-file>index.jsp</welcome-file> >>>>> </welcome-file-list> >>>>> >>>>> +<!-- ==================== distributable ===================== --> >>>>> +<distributable/> >>>>> </web-app> >>>> -1 >>>> >>>> This will cause web applications to fail when adding session attributes >>>> that are not Serializable. >>> Not it won't. This is *not* changing the default value of distributable. >> That<distributable> flag is in conf/web.xml, which I assumed set >> defaults for all web applications. Is<distributable> handled >> differently than, say,<servlet-mapping> or anything else we put into >> conf/web.xml? >> >> I apologize for not having read the code at this point. >> >> -chris >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
