Rick Mann wrote:
>
> on 8/29/01 1:15 PM, Christopher Cain at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I'll throw an idea out here, although it may well get shot down for
> > either spec non-compliance, possible security concerns, or just general
> > lack of sex appeal ;-)
>
> I think I'd complain mostly on the grounds of lack of sex appeal. ;-)
>
> Seriously, though, this amounts to tricking Tomcat, I think, and that
> solution does not seem terribly elegant.
It's not really tricking Tomcat at all, IMO. I use soft links for all of
my webapps, since several developers need access to the webapps, but
they don't need access to the Tomcat tree itself. Links are often a very
no-fuss, no-muss solution, and in this case I think it would make alot
of sense (assuming there isn't a spec or technical argument against this
approach).
> BTW, I missed the email that said Tomcat ignores CLASSPATH, but I've
> inferred now that it does (which explains why I couldn't get that approach
> to work).
Tomcat ignores the system CLASSPATH, yes. Several things start to get
really messy if it doesn't use it's own internal classloader.
> So, I'm left with two alternatives that should satisfy my sense of
> aesthetics, but one of which is easier for me (the app developer) to use.
>
> 1) Extend Server.xml to tell Tomcat what additional directories to put in
> the search path.
>
> 2) Add those search paths myself, in my webapp's code. Keep in mind that, as
> Rob S. speculated, I know very little about the ClassLoader mechanism.
That's an awful lot of hacking when you could simply create links in
your WEB-INF/lib directories. I'm not sure how the core developers feel
about my idea, but I would think that you would _definitely_ like it
better than the above. It's an infinitely cleaner approach. You must be
a Windoze guy to hate symlinks that much ;-)
- Christopher
