It is possible (I think) to do what you want, but I do not recommend
it. I would prefer that you use external plans, and write 2 new
modules inside configs, to deploy your sample to jetty and to
tomcat. Take the geronimo-web.xml out of the app and put it in src/
plan/plan.xml.
However, if you wish to defy me :-) you can use the generic schema
http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/j2ee/web-1.0 (geronimo-
web-1.0.xsd) with sections in a container-config for the jetty and
tomcat specific parts. These would use the namespace/schemas e.g.
http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/web/jetty/config-1.0 (geronimo-
jetty-config-1.0.xsd).
A problem with this approach might be that you are including a gbean
in the tomcat config that is not needed in the jetty config. I don't
understand why this would be there anyway, but I don't think you can
have gbeans in the container-config part.
Is it possible to adjust the jetty and tomcat clustering configs to
be roughly the same and include the element in geronimo-web-1.0.xsd?
hope this helps
david jencks
On Jan 4, 2006, at 10:19 AM, Jules Gosnell wrote:
Aaron, David, or anyone in the know :-)
Maybe you can help me with this:
I have a WADI demo webapp.
To get it running with Jetty, I need a WEB-INF/geronimo-web.xml
that looks like this:
<web-app xmlns="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/j2ee/web/
jetty-1.0" configId="wadi">
<context-root>/wadi</context-root>
<context-priority-classloader>false</context-priority-classloader>
<session-manager>org.codehaus.wadi.jetty5.JettyManager</session-
manager>
</web-app>
To get it running with Tomcat, I have to have a geronimo-web.xml
that looks like this:
<web-app xmlns="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/j2ee/web/
tomcat-1.0" configId="wadi">
<context-root>/wadi</context-root>
<context-priority-classloader>false</context-priority-classloader>
<manager>WADI</manager>
<gbean name="WADI"
class="org.apache.geronimo.tomcat.cluster.WADIGBean"/>
</web-app>
What I would like, is a single geronimo-web.xml that contains both
Jetty and TC configs, merged.
Do you know if this is possible, if so, would you mind pointing me
in the right direction ?
Much appreciated,
Jules
Aaron Mulder wrote:
David J,
I thought when you added the separate Tomcat and Jetty namespaces,
you
were going to remove the container-config section from the generic
geronimo-web.xml, but it seems that it's still there. Jeff thinks
maybe it's for something like the console, where we want it to
work in
both Tomcat and Jetty yet we might still require some
container-specific extensions (makes sense to me).
If we're going to keep the generic geronimo-web.xml and keep the
container-config section in it, can we drop the container-specific
namespaces? I think you favored the namespaces because if you use a
container-specific namespace then any container-specific settings
could be validated in XML, but I think that's pretty useless if it
only applies if you're willing to force your app to only deploy in
one
container or the other. (That is to say, if you want your web app to
run in either Tomcat or Jetty -- which is probably the normal case,
then you can't use a container-specific namespace so it doesn't
matter
what the benefits of container-specific namespaces are.)
The only way I can see the container-specific namespaces being
beneficial is if the container-config became an "any" and then we
namespaced the content that went within it -- so the overall file
always used the generic namespace but then you used a
container-specific one for the contents of the container-config
element only.
Am I missing something?
Thanks,
Aaron
--
"Open Source is a self-assembling organism. You dangle a piece of
string into a super-saturated solution and a whole operating-system
crystallises out around it."
/**********************************
* Jules Gosnell
* Partner
* Core Developers Network (Europe)
*
* www.coredevelopers.net
*
* Open Source Training & Support.
**********************************/
