On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 13:16 -0500, Christopher Schultz wrote: > I haven't looked at the code but my first reaction was "why not use > url-rewrite?" When you say that it can re-start request processing, you > mean that you can essentially perform internal rewrites/forwards/etc. > without having to use the request dispatcher? Certainly reducing stack > size is not a bad idea and should improve performance.
It may improve performance, but most importantly the application's state is untouched. It will not see any of the original request in its filters, only the modified one, etc. > The fact that it is mostly compatible with mod_rewrite configuration > syntax is definitely a plus, though url-rewrite 4 can read > mod_rewrite-style configuration files, too. > > Finally, there is the spec-versus-implementation issue. It's great that > Tomcat could provide this kind of capability, but since it is > out-of-spec we might be doing a disservice to our users. I know I'm > always irritated when someone posts to the users' list that they are > switching from JBoss/Sun/Jetty/Whatever and Tomcat doesn't mirror some > out-of-spec capability and they are all mad about it. That's what I like > about url-rewrite: you make it a part of your webapp and it should work > everywhere. The valve works at the vhost level as well (as I mentioned in my previous email), there were [minor] user requests for "creative" vhost mapping. So it should be able to do a lot of things that are quite complex to do otherwise, and is generally useful for customer support [since it can do anything except proxying]. Rémy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
