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 <xhh...@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