On Aug 25, 2005, at 4:05 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Aug 25, 2005, at 3:51 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Aug 24, 2005, at 8:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
So, I realize there is a bit of weakness in my idea, namely a lot
of web apps don't need a plan: so in my rosy future, there would
need to be a "default web container" that these would get pushed
to. So, how about this idea:
a "fake" common schema that includes the common elements and a
single [virtual-]host element
a jetty schema that is the same except allowing multiple virtual-
host elements
a tomcat schema that is the same but includes the additional
tomcat specific elements.
The tomcat and jetty builders can both change the common
namespace to their own namespace and deploy as if it is their own.
This takes care of 100% of the cases you mentioned :-) However,
it doesn't take care of the <cross-context/> element which can be
put in the tomcat config without making it undeployable on
jetty. I'll actually weaken my case a bit by pointing out that
the tomcat specific gbeans relating to the tomcat-realm and valve-
chain should probably come from tomcat specific xml in the tomcat
schema rather than plain gbean definitions.
Could you live with this proposal?
Are you proposing that we support 3 configuration file formats:
geronimo-web.xml, geronimo-jetty.xml, and geronimo-tomcat.xml?
yes. Also, a valid geronimo-web document is a valid geronimo-jetty
or geronimo-tomcat document after changng the namespace.
I don't like this. This is killing the user with options. Can't we
just come up with a single reasonable format with escapes for the
rare cases?
-dain
