Hi Anita,
initial patch? The patch I posted had a single deleted line from each
pom. Just trying to understand the question.
On the j2ee-deployer being added; That was a result of other issues
with dependencies being missed. Starting with (I believe)
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2326
There were many many problems solved by adding that parent config
without causing other issues. I believe the whole conversation took
place in that JIRA so hopefully there is enough info there to inform
you.
As to the #2 issue/question I'm not sure, but from my current vantage
point with more experience of car stacking perhaps getting the tomcat-
deployer config correct would fix both 2326 & this issue.
Thanks,
-bd-
On Sep 6, 2006, at 9:58 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
Bill,
The webconsole-tomcat config differs from the original patch. To
answer your question correctly, I need to understand why:
1. The j2ee-deployer config was added as a parent configuration.
2. The tomcat-deployer config was changed so that tomcat config is not
a parent of tomcat-deployer config.
I am searching the archives/jiras. I need to do some testing..
Thanks
Anita
--- Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anita,
While the jar's are not required in the class loader, without them
the warning messages are printed.
Do you have ideas about how to get rid of the warning messages and
keep the 'provided' scope?
I think I prefer pushing all the methods into the 'super interface'
and having an UnsupportedOperationException as long as there are good
error messages as to what has happened (i.e. 'a method was invoked on
the Jetty container that is not supported, perhaps you wanted to use
Tomcat instead?' or something less cheesy).
Anyway I'm not sure of the best way to handle this but I don't like
the warning messages. I think they would look ominous to initial
users then over time users would stop worrying about warning
messages. Which is bad IMO.
TTFN,
-bd-
On Sep 5, 2006, at 8:23 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
I'm not sure what the point is of listing it as "provided", if
that's
what we're currently doing. I'm pretty sure it's not "provided"
so
we
might as well either not list it or list it as a regular
dependency.
The scope=provided is used to enforce the build order for the
configs, i.e the console configs are not built before the
jetty/tomcat
deployer configs are built in a multi config build. These cars are
not
required in the classloader.
Thanks
Anita
On 9/4/06, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi All,
The consoles (tomcat & jetty) are spewing warning messages like
this;
08:00:18,511 WARN [BasicProxyManager] Could not load interface
org.apache.geronimo.jetty.JettyWebAppContext in provided
ClassLoader
for org.apache.geronimo.configs/welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car?
J2EEApplication=null,j2eeType=WebModule,name=org.apache.geronimo.conf
igs
/welcome-jetty/1.2-SNAPSHOT/car
To fix it we can simply remove the <scope>provided</scope> from
the
<artifactId>{jetty,tomcat}-deployer</artifactId> dependencies
in
the
webconsole-{jetty,tomcat}/pom.xml.
Could someone who knows more about the console than me please
review
the patch (GERONIMO-2344.bdudney-2.patch) here;
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2344
And apply it if it makes sense?
Thanks!
-bd-
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
