We are finding this a particularly frustrating experience, and it seems to be a "weak" 
point either/or both in specification and implementation (or a fatal flaw in our basic 
approach - but would add we are consistent at least with the "intent" of the EJB 
specs). Would appreciate input and enlightenment.

Questions:

1. Should one assume use of the J2EE SDK distribution of Tomcat is required for J2EE 
interoperability, per 2.0 spec? More directly, is it reasonable to try to get J2EE 
interopability with the apache distribution of Tomcat?
2. Why is there no javax.xml.transform implementation inside the apache Tomcat 
distribution?
3. For a J2EE container to be "interoperable" per the spec, would it be reasonable to 
assume this means class loading issues inside the "client" container have been 
tested/addressed?
4. How is one supposed to develop a reasonable plan/approach for J2EE 
interoperability? Or is interoperability a bad idea?

Summary:

In our case we are trying to upgrade to Tomcat 4.1.12 under Win2K to interoperate with 
WL 7.01. We have two web applications deployed under Tomcat, referencing EJB's and 
DataSources running inside WL. The web applications also require an implementation of 
javax.xml.transform. We are currently successfully deployed using Tomcat 3.3 and WL 
5.1 (using T3).

In our first attempted new configuration, we opted to use WL T3 (ie weblogic.jar) to 
communicate from Tomcat to WL. Placed this in TOMCAT_HOME/shared/lib. This also 
provided a usable implementation of javax.xml.transform. Our application jars are all 
placed in WEB-INF/lib. Problem occurred when referencing an EJBHome first from one web 
app, then subsequently from another. Led to class cast exceptions when doing the 
narrow on PortableRemoteObject. Assumption is because a given home is now loaded in 
two separate class loaders, this is causing problems? Don't know exactly. The home 
remote stub gets loaded by a WL classloader whose parent is the WebppClassLoader, 
whose parent is the StandardClassLoader for "shared". The home interface is loaded by 
the WebappClassLoader, whose parent is the StandardClassLoader for "shared". 
Interception.

In a second attempted configuration, tried to move weblogic.jar down from 
TOMCAT_HOME/shared/lib to WEB-INF/lib. This has side affect of warning messages about 
not loading javax.servlet per 2.3 spec section 9.7.2. Fine. It also appeared to result 
in loss of the javax.xml.transform implementation in weblogic.jar. Looks like 
something to do with not messing with JAXP from WEB-INF, only the classes in question 
don't exist anywhere else! Fine, we added xalan.jar to TOMCAT_HOME/shared/lib. We then 
blew up on first attempt to use a WL hosted DataSource, with class not found issues. 
This looks like issues with javax.sql classes that have been loaded higher up the 
loader hierarchy not being able to find stuff down inside WEB-INF/lib. Punt.

In considering a third configuration, we began investigating using RMI-IIOP to 
communicate with WL. In theory this should be possible per EJB spec 2.0 section 19? 
First immediate problem seemed to be that Tomcat has no javax.ejb classes available. 
Would seem these classes are only available when running Tomcat under the J2EE SDK 
distribution? In general uncertainty about this, and whether it will even address 
class loading issues, has caused us to wait before proceeding. Fumble.

Finally, a fourth configuration was tried which seemed to have some promise, with a 
serious drawback. Would appear that things basically work if we put everything, 
weblogic.jar, jdbc drivers, application jars, testing jars, etc into 
TOMCAT_HOME/shared. Unfortunately, this pretty much eliminates/defeats any hope of 
deploying applications without tearding down the container and also complicates the 
build/deployment process as we can no longer just throw a new .war file over the wall 
at operations. Penalty.

Any feedback is appreciated.

Andrew




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to