On 04/06/2015 17:31, Christopher Schultz wrote:
>>> We probably have a lot of places where we "resolve" filenames but
>>> I'm guessing we don't have a single utility method to do the
>>> work;
>
>> Wrong :)
>
>>> probably just new File(new File(file).getCanonicalPath()) or
>>> something like t
> From: Ray Holme [mailto:rayho...@yahoo.com.INVALID]
> Subject: Re: [OT] jar files - where - please explain
> I may be off base here, but IMHO Windoze does not support symbolic links
Yes, you're off base. Windows symlinks have been available since Vista. GIYF.
For
>> For instance, most UNIX filesystems have symlinks and
>> case-sensitive filesystems, and these checks would not be
>> necessary. Plus, users in those environments are quite used to
>> using symlinks in place of real files.
>>
Using Unix and Linux for a LONG time, love symlinks as they work acr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Mark,
On 6/4/15 3:15 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 03/06/2015 21:57, Christopher Schultz wrote:
>> Mark,
>>
>> On 6/3/15 3:53 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 03/06/2015 20:48, Christopher Schultz wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
I don't understand the underlyi
>Inside the WAR or having the WAR as a symlnk?
OK, I did a test and YES inside a WAR file
${CATALINA_HOME}/webapps/Application/WEB-INF/lib/*.jarfiles ARE expanded if
they are symbolic links to real files. (My bad for not testing before).Now I am
really in trouble. I have an application which ha
On 03/06/2015 21:57, Christopher Schultz wrote:
> Mark,
>
> On 6/3/15 3:53 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 03/06/2015 20:48, Christopher Schultz wrote:
>
>>
>
>>> I don't understand the underlying reasons why Tomcat treats
>>> symlinks specially...
>
>>
>
>> It is to do with case sensitivity on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Mark,
On 6/3/15 3:53 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 03/06/2015 20:48, Christopher Schultz wrote:
>
>
>
>> I don't understand the underlying reasons why Tomcat treats
>> symlinks specially...
>
>
>
> It is to do with case sensitivity on non case s
