Re: context problems: not addressed; summary

[Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com>]

Did you figure out what he is talking about ? Could you summarise - I
can't parse his rant.


Costin

On 5/2/06, Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thomas Whitmore wrote:
> > Perhaps my bug report came across as a rant, because it had covered
> > several attempts all of which featured Contexts being non-functional
> > or deployment auto-deleting what it shouldn't have,
> >
> > because I'd already read the docs, searched the web, read the NGs,
> > read the bug reports, and seen these issues already being raised,
> > with users being waved away/ blatantly disregarded...
> >
>
> All the "issues" are similar (except the one before the last, which is a
> problem that was fixed, I think - apparently, you don't consider the
> possibility that there could be unintended bugs). It's really not very
> hard to imagine the reason why it is done like this if you think about
> it for 5 minutes. AFAIK, the behaviors you describe are also documented.
> Your posts should go to the user list, they have nothing to do on the
> dev list, as I have said in the bug report.
>
> Note: Please do not flood the list. To be perfectly honest, I think you
> are posting these in bad faith.
>
> Rémy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>

Re: context problems: not addressed; summary

[Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com>]

On 5/2/06, Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> Costin Manolache wrote:
> > Did you figure out what he is talking about ? Could you summarise - I
> > can't parse his rant.
>
> To be honest, not really. The point is that I simplified the deployer so
> that only one meaningful information is considered (for example, when
> deploying an archive the path comes from the archive name, etc) rather
> than a random one. I have stated previously I was ok if someone redid
> the deployer completely (it's all in Host/ContextConfig, so it should be
> possible), as it could be more flexible, etc. I don't think trying to
> extend the current one would work really well, and it's not exactly
> trivial either.

So what's the problem ? Should we better explain why the previous
behavior was bad and was removed ? Add more info next to 'WON'T FIX' ?

Anyone can implement any deployer they want - we have all the hooks
one would need, and if a hook is missing we can add it. But we also
have to simplify and make things  more consistent in the default
tomcat.

Costin

Re: context problems: not addressed; summary

[Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>]

Costin Manolache wrote:
> Did you figure out what he is talking about ? Could you summarise - I
> can't parse his rant.

To be honest, not really. The point is that I simplified the deployer so 
that only one meaningful information is considered (for example, when 
deploying an archive the path comes from the archive name, etc) rather 
than a random one. I have stated previously I was ok if someone redid 
the deployer completely (it's all in Host/ContextConfig, so it should be 
possible), as it could be more flexible, etc. I don't think trying to 
extend the current one would work really well, and it's not exactly 
trivial either.

Rémy

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org