On 05/08/2010 11:38, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 04.08.2010 22:47, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> I'm happy to see all of this configuration completely re-written if that
>> is what is required. That said, this is just a start-up optimisation.
>>
>> I think we need three groups:
>> a) never scan (JAR or TLD)
>>
On 04.08.2010 22:47, Mark Thomas wrote:
I'm happy to see all of this configuration completely re-written if that
is what is required. That said, this is just a start-up optimisation.
I think we need three groups:
a) never scan (JAR or TLD)
b) default jarsToSkip
c) default noTldJar
I'd suggest a
On 04/08/2010 12:54, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> would it make sense to make jarsToSkip publicly available in the
> JarScanner interface and default impl, in order to allow to configure it
> per context as part of context.xml?
+1
> Is there one JarScanner instance per context?
Yes.
Hello everyone,
would it make sense to make jarsToSkip publicly available in the
JarScanner interface and default impl, in order to allow to configure it
per context as part of context.xml? Is there one JarScanner instance per
context?
If so: How would we want to merge default settings and p
