> In our situation, we plan to use multiple virtual hosts, each with its
> own root context. That makes the URLs shorter and easier for people to
> work with. It also lets you more easily move/copy one context to
> another without having to fix all the links.
We use many virtual hosts today in production,
however they all share the same root context.
To some this might seem counter-intuitive.
It actually does make sense if you're using the MVC pattern and
you use virtual hosts to define a cluster of alternate views.
Just because the "View" is changing doesn't mean the serlvet (controller)
isn't identical. We like to avoid loading lots of VM's.
In fact, we have base servlets than are extended by host specific
servlets for specific views.
It also gives you flexibility in the "route" people take to your servers.
Hostname A might have hot spares, while hostname B has a cluster of
servers behind it.
> If anybody is interested in the patches, let me know and I'll post them
> to the list again.
Would your patches work in the above scenario as well?
If so, I'd love to have them!
Is their any reason their not merged into the core 3.2 code?
> I'd also like to cast my vote for a production quality release and
> continued development of tomcat 3.x for production use.
Definitely want to chime in and agree on this. We're still running 3.1 in
production on
8 web servers. It's slow, it doesn't let us do sessions (aforementioned
reasons) but hey--
It's stable.
-Matthew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
