On 27/02/2012 14:45, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 27/02/2012 14:33, Pid wrote: >> On 27/02/2012 13:16, Christopher Schultz wrote: >>> Lucas, >>> >>> On 2/27/12 5:36 AM, Lucas Pouzac wrote: >>>> a library (prettyfaces) uses a web-tag fragment without >>>> <distributable /> >>> >>>> With metadata-complete="true", It works correctly. >>> >>> Interesting. > >> +1 That seems surprising. I don't see why the fragment would >> impact this. > > Not at all surprising. Servlet 3.0, section 8.2.3, 5.g.ix > <quote> > The web.xml resulting from the merge is considered <distributable> > only if all its web fragments are marked as <distributable> as well. > </quote>
Ever the spec. :) >>> We should probably issue a warning if a web fragment disagrees >>> with a definite value for the "distributable" flag in the >>> webapp's web.xml. > >> How would it do that? There's no such tag as >> <not-distributable/>. > > It could be done easily on the merge but I'd be strongly against it. > There are lots of rules for merging web fragments and I don't think we > should be logging very decision that gets made. > >> Shouldn't the web.xml value override the fragment value(s), in this >> case? So fragment authors will have to explicitly state that their components should be distributable, or the app isn't. That's a new one to look out for. </learned-a-new-one> p -- [key:62590808]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
