Rick Mann wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Now, to avoid changing the spec, which I understand to be the Servlet 2.2
> spec
Depends on which version you're using. Tomcat 3.x conforms to the 2.2
spec. Tomcat conforms to the almost-finalized 2.3 spec.
> which also understand to specify the structure of the web.xml file
True, web.xml is defined by the spec and completely out of our hands.
> I propose adding the functionality to the Server.xml file, which I believe to
> be defined by the core developers. If this is not the case, well, it makes
> my request more difficult.
True, server.xml is Tomcat-specific, fluid, and can be changed, for the
most part, at will. The reason you will have trouble convincing many of
the core developers to change server.xml is because what are you are
proposing skirts dangerously close to encouraging non-portability. As
the official RI for the specification, the general idea is to think very
carefully about adding any feature which, if taken advantage of in a
webapp, would fail to run on another spec-compliant container. Allowing
admins to specify additional classpaths (in a config file) for a webapp,
above and beyond what is explicitly provided for in the spec, is a risky
proposition. Classloading is one of those issues that generally gets a
lot of thought towards portability before any changes are made.
I'm not saying that there might not be a workable solution to the issue.
I'm just saying that in proposing changes to server.xml for that
particular issue, you are probably headed down the wrong path for the
above reason, primarily. If you aim is to see your solution incorporated
into the product, that is. Otherwise, go nuts :)
- Christopher
/**
* Pleurez, pleurez, mes yeux, et fondez vous en eau!
* La moitié de ma vie a mis l'autre au tombeau.
* ---Cornelle
*/
