--- Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> anita kulshreshtha wrote:
> > --- Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>anita kulshreshtha wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> the jetty like webapp classloader would not work.
>
> > In the later case we will need to provide
> common,
> > shared dirs in catalina_home (var/catalina). In
> this
> > case we will need to get access to tomcat's
> > classloader.
>
> This is doable, and as we get developing the Tomcat
> builder, we will get
> access to the Tomcat class loader. We have no
> choice but to obtain the
> Tomcat class loader for creating the component
> context.
>
> We also need to think about the meaning
> > of autodeploy/redeploy. If people are using tomcat
> > because they are familiar with it, then we must
> > support this. However here will be limit to this,
> for
> > example they cannot(?) use tomcat's security.
>
> We should be able to use Tomcat's security. Its
> just a matter of
> declaring the proper realm. The realm model
> supports pluggable security
> components, so this should work fine.
>
> > Please comment
> > TIA
> > Anita
>
>
> >
> >>2) The concept of a server.xml file needs to be
> >>supported for the Tomcat
> >>container. In order to allow people to run thier
> >>web apps, we must
> >>support custom Valves and Realms at the container,
> >>host, and context
> >>levels. This is normally declared in a server.xml
> >>file, however, we
> >>could allow for this type of declaration to be
> >>implemented in the plans
> >>somehow. We need to kick around the appropriate
> >>place for this. In any
> >>case, this would eventually be a required add-on
> to
> >>the TMB.
> >>
> >>3) It would be nice to have the servlets be
> >>GBeanized, like Jetty.
> >>Although this is not a requirement to get Tomcat
> >>integrated, it would be
> >>a nice-to-have for consistency sake.
> >>
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
