It sounds to me as if we should be integrating with the facilities in Servlet 3.0, since it has been final now for over a year. Specifically see:
Section 4.4: Configuration methods - An API to add and configure servlets, filters, and listeners at runtime. Chapter 8: Annotations and Pluggability - Capabilities for configuring web.xml behavior piecemeal through annotations and web.xml fragments separate from web.xml On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 1:21 PM, John Tamplin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 1:11 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't see any problem with the code. > > > > Is this really something we want to happen by default? I'm concerned it > > will be baffling to a user why a web.xml gets created only some of the > > time. It seems to me that an external tool that could parse xml could > > create such a file if it was needed without too much work. There's > > nothing in here that couldn't be done in a python script with access to > > the module files. > > I think we lost useful functionality when we lost the ability to put > servlet tags in a module (think about a self-contained module that > contains client code and the servlet needed for the server-side piece > - it would be nice to just inherit it and it works, such as for > server-side script selection). > > Should we reconsider the decision to have web.xml authoritive and > instead have a template which is used to generate the web.xml file? > If there is already a web.xml file, we keep the behavior of today, and > if not then we are always generating a web.xml file, whether from > web-template.xml (or whatever) or creating a default one if the user > didn't supply one. > > -- > John A. Tamplin > Software Engineer (GWT), Google > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
