I was going to ask a very similar question, only regarding the RPC services declared in web.xml. In dev mode it seems you need the pattern: /module-name/service.rpc for the servlet mapping, whereas in production mode you only need /service.rpc.
At the moment we have an ant task that transforms the web.xml to strip out the prefix for deployment to production. Is there any way to not have to do this? Thanks On Mar 4, 11:20 am, cri <[email protected]> wrote: > I saw another post on this subject, but there wasn't a satisfactory > answer for me. So... > > I find it very unfortunate that my GWT application URLs are not > consistent between development mode and web mode. Our application > lives on an intranet with lots of interaction with other intranet > resources which requires us to derive resources URLs depending on the > environment that we are running in. > > In our testing and production environments, our application URL is > "http://hostname:port/myapp/myapp.html";. In development mode, the url > ishttp://hostname:port/myapp.html?gwt.codesvr=127.0.0.1:9997. This > has caused us all kinds of pain in terms of fragile URL derivation > code and application breakage caused by this fragility. So, there are > two problems. One, we need a way to preserve our application context, > which is fundamental to web applications. Second, we need a way to > lose the "?gwt.codesvr=127.0.0.1:9997". Surely, there is a less > intrusive way to handle this development mode information. > > In another thread on this problem, a way to preserve the application > context was suggested that required giving up the nice jetty > integration that comes out of the box with the gwt eclipse plugin. I'd > hate to give this up and I'd hate to have to have our entire > development team give it up as well. They wouldn't like it. > > Also, in the other thread, there was a description on how to bypass > the "?gwt.codesvr=127.0.0.1:9997". Unfortunately, looking over the > instructions a couple of times, I still don't quite understand what I > need to do. > > I don't know if there is a work around for this issue; one that > doesn't require giving up the nifty jetty integration. I'd be very > grateful of course if anyone could suggest a work around. > > In any case, I sure think that a future release of GWT should address > this issue. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
