https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64818
Igal Sapir changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64818
--- Comment #10 from Mark Thomas ---
The move to enhancement just signifies that it is being treated as an
enhancement rather than a bug as they have different expectations when it comes
to speed of resolution.
I continue to be of the view tha
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64818
--- Comment #9 from Igal Sapir ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #4)
>
>
> I've traced this back to the original EG discussion and it was only
> considering one URL pattern mapping to multiple Servlets. The case of
> duplicate mapping
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64818
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|minor |enhancement
--- Comment #8 from Mark Tho
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64818
--- Comment #7 from Christopher Schultz ---
(In reply to mgrigorov from comment #6)
> (In reply to Christopher Schultz from comment #5)
> > What about specifying the (same) mapping in both @Annotations and also in
> > WEB-INF/web.xml? If that c
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64818
--- Comment #6 from mgrigorov ---
(In reply to Christopher Schultz from comment #5)
> What about specifying the (same) mapping in both @Annotations and also in
> WEB-INF/web.xml? If that causes an error, it would be *very* frustrating. I
> woul
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64818
--- Comment #5 from Christopher Schultz ---
What about specifying the (same) mapping in both @Annotations and also in
WEB-INF/web.xml? If that causes an error, it would be *very* frustrating. I
wouldn't consider this a bug, but rather two separ
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64818
--- Comment #4 from Mark Thomas ---
The text from the spec is:
If the effective web.xml (after merging information from fragments and
annotations) contains any url-patterns that are mapped to multiple servlets
then the deployment must fail.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64818
--- Comment #3 from Igal Sapir ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #2)
> I'm leaning towards WONTFIX for this one.
>
> Given the spec calls this out explicitly as not allowed then I think there
> needs to be a very good reason to make an
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64818
--- Comment #2 from Mark Thomas ---
I'm leaning towards WONTFIX for this one.
Given the spec calls this out explicitly as not allowed then I think there
needs to be a very good reason to make an exception and at the moment I don't
see one.
--
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64818
--- Comment #1 from mgrigorov ---
Why duplicates should be allowed ?
This is definitely a developer mistake. And it is easy to fix - just remove the
second entry.
How such kind of error could go to Production? Does that mean the developer
neve
11 matches
Mail list logo
