You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> on 2009/06/16 07:37:41 UTC
Default war deployed w/o plan gets /WebApp_ID context?
Aren't we trying to do something a little bit more intelligent about
picking a context for deployed wars w/o a plan.xml?
Re: Default war deployed w/o plan gets /WebApp_ID context?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
I think that is the case now, I was confused (still a little too) as
to why the <web-app id="" was being used instead.
--jason
On Jun 16, 2009, at 4:15 PM, Rex Wang wrote:
> IMO, war file's name is more user friendly.
>
> -Rex
>
> 2009/6/16 Ivan <xh...@gmail.com>
> WebApp_ID is not so friendly, not sure when it begins, this should
> be improved, maybe we could use the war file's name as the default
> context.
>
> 2009/6/16 Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
> Aren't we trying to do something a little bit more intelligent about
> picking a context for deployed wars w/o a plan.xml?
>
>
>
>
>
> Seems like all of these "default/..." wars want to mount under /
> WebApp_ID... forcing me to make a plan for them, just to set the
> context.
>
> Is this how it always worked?
>
> --jason
>
>
>
> --
> Ivan
>
Re: Default war deployed w/o plan gets /WebApp_ID context?
Posted by Rex Wang <rw...@gmail.com>.
IMO, war file's name is more user friendly.
-Rex
2009/6/16 Ivan <xh...@gmail.com>
> WebApp_ID is not so friendly, not sure when it begins, this should be
> improved, maybe we could use the war file's name as the default context.
>
> 2009/6/16 Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
>
>> Aren't we trying to do something a little bit more intelligent about
>> picking a context for deployed wars w/o a plan.xml?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Seems like all of these "default/..." wars want to mount under
>> /WebApp_ID... forcing me to make a plan for them, just to set the context.
>>
>> Is this how it always worked?
>>
>> --jason
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ivan
>
Re: Default war deployed w/o plan gets /WebApp_ID context?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On Jun 16, 2009, at 2:40 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 12:08 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> I have to retract this with some shame... *blush*
>>
>> I didn't realize that all of the silly webapps I was testing had
>> their <web-app id="WebApp_ID" ...
>
> It's news to me that tomcat does this.... it must be a result of
> feeding the web.xml into digester. I'm pretty sure jetty ignores
> any id attributes.... this is pretty weird use of the id attribute
> IMHO and is certainly beyond the spec.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
Hrm... maybe its not such a good thing to let Tomcat do that?
--jason
Re: Default war deployed w/o plan gets /WebApp_ID context?
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Jun 16, 2009, at 12:08 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> I have to retract this with some shame... *blush*
>
> I didn't realize that all of the silly webapps I was testing had
> their <web-app id="WebApp_ID" ...
It's news to me that tomcat does this.... it must be a result of
feeding the web.xml into digester. I'm pretty sure jetty ignores any
id attributes.... this is pretty weird use of the id attribute IMHO
and is certainly beyond the spec.
thanks
david jencks
>
> OMG.
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 1:29 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> Even a random context would be better than always using "/
>> WebApp_ID"... but I would imagine that it should first try and
>> create a unique context from the filename, encoding muck as
>> needed. Otherwise, how about something more like "/webapp<counter>".
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Jun 16, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Shawn Jiang wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed, use war file name as the default context is a good start.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Ivan <xh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> WebApp_ID is not so friendly, not sure when it begins, this should
>>> be improved, maybe we could use the war file's name as the default
>>> context.
>>>
>>> 2009/6/16 Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
>>> Aren't we trying to do something a little bit more intelligent
>>> about picking a context for deployed wars w/o a plan.xml?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Seems like all of these "default/..." wars want to mount under /
>>> WebApp_ID... forcing me to make a plan for them, just to set the
>>> context.
>>>
>>> Is this how it always worked?
>>>
>>> --jason
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Shawn
>>
>
Re: Default war deployed w/o plan gets /WebApp_ID context?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
I have to retract this with some shame... *blush*
I didn't realize that all of the silly webapps I was testing had their
<web-app id="WebApp_ID" ...
OMG.
--jason
On Jun 16, 2009, at 1:29 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> Even a random context would be better than always using "/
> WebApp_ID"... but I would imagine that it should first try and
> create a unique context from the filename, encoding muck as needed.
> Otherwise, how about something more like "/webapp<counter>".
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Shawn Jiang wrote:
>
>> Agreed, use war file name as the default context is a good start.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Ivan <xh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> WebApp_ID is not so friendly, not sure when it begins, this should
>> be improved, maybe we could use the war file's name as the default
>> context.
>>
>> 2009/6/16 Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
>> Aren't we trying to do something a little bit more intelligent
>> about picking a context for deployed wars w/o a plan.xml?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Seems like all of these "default/..." wars want to mount under /
>> WebApp_ID... forcing me to make a plan for them, just to set the
>> context.
>>
>> Is this how it always worked?
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Shawn
>
Re: Default war deployed w/o plan gets /WebApp_ID context?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Even a random context would be better than always using "/
WebApp_ID"... but I would imagine that it should first try and create
a unique context from the filename, encoding muck as needed.
Otherwise, how about something more like "/webapp<counter>".
--jason
On Jun 16, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Shawn Jiang wrote:
> Agreed, use war file name as the default context is a good start.
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Ivan <xh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> WebApp_ID is not so friendly, not sure when it begins, this should
> be improved, maybe we could use the war file's name as the default
> context.
>
> 2009/6/16 Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
> Aren't we trying to do something a little bit more intelligent about
> picking a context for deployed wars w/o a plan.xml?
>
>
>
>
>
> Seems like all of these "default/..." wars want to mount under /
> WebApp_ID... forcing me to make a plan for them, just to set the
> context.
>
> Is this how it always worked?
>
> --jason
>
>
>
> --
> Ivan
>
>
>
> --
> Shawn
Re: Default war deployed w/o plan gets /WebApp_ID context?
Posted by Shawn Jiang <ge...@gmail.com>.
Agreed, use war file name as the default context is a good start.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Ivan <xh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> WebApp_ID is not so friendly, not sure when it begins, this should be
> improved, maybe we could use the war file's name as the default context.
>
> 2009/6/16 Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
>
>> Aren't we trying to do something a little bit more intelligent about
>> picking a context for deployed wars w/o a plan.xml?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Seems like all of these "default/..." wars want to mount under
>> /WebApp_ID... forcing me to make a plan for them, just to set the context.
>>
>> Is this how it always worked?
>>
>> --jason
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ivan
>
--
Shawn
Re: Default war deployed w/o plan gets /WebApp_ID context?
Posted by Ivan <xh...@gmail.com>.
WebApp_ID is not so friendly, not sure when it begins, this should be
improved, maybe we could use the war file's name as the default context.
2009/6/16 Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
> Aren't we trying to do something a little bit more intelligent about
> picking a context for deployed wars w/o a plan.xml?
>
>
>
>
>
> Seems like all of these "default/..." wars want to mount under
> /WebApp_ID... forcing me to make a plan for them, just to set the context.
>
> Is this how it always worked?
>
> --jason
>
--
Ivan