On 15/12/2010 03:03, Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >>>> Actually, this makes sense to me: the default mapping for the JSP >>>> servlet is "*.jsp". Your path doesn't end in .jsp, and therefore does >>>> not match the url-pattern. >>>> >>>> this is the crux of the problem, and the showstopper preventing us from >>>> >>> deploying under Tomcat -- all our applications use this convention and, as >>> I >>> said, it works in other servlet containers. >>> >>> I tried using *.jsp/* and this threw a parsing error, >>> >> Hmm. Odd. I'll look into that. It won't work they way you want but I'd like >> to get to the bottom of the parsing error. > > > Thanks. It's beginning to sound like Tomcat won't be suitable for this app, > and I can respect the servlet spec, but it does seem odd to me that a JSP is > not just another servlet that happens to have a funny infix-dot name.
Go read the spec. The JSP Servlet is mapped based on file extension not path. There is *no* facility within the Servlet spec to map any Servlet to /**/*.jsp/* > It should obey the same rules of conduct as any servlet, It does. > and if not, then the > class should prevent the use of functions like getPathInfo() or the > documents warn against the use of these as the presence of them is giving a > false impression of jsp/servlet equivalence. They are entirely equivalent. getPathInfo() is always going to return null for any servlet (JSP or any other) using extension mapping. The issue is containers providing Servlet mappings that are not compliant with the Servlet specification and not warning their users that is what they are doing. That makes portability pretty much impossible. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
