Hi Jacques, My intuitive, we should follow new Servlet features.
And off the topic, I saw websocket added to OFBiz and can be improved, besides this, we don't support Annotation of Servlet 3. I'll try to fill these gaps when I find some free time. Kind Regards, Shi Jinghai -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com] 发送时间: 2018年3月27日 15:19 收件人: dev@ofbiz.apache.org 主题: [SUMMARY] Tomcat 8.5 and, servlet4preview and how I came there Hi All, I think I owe the community an explanation of the current situation and how I came there. It will help everybody interested to better understand the situation. I'll try to make it as concise as possible (not my strong point). For a custom project, and another custom feature which will perhaps be contributed, I wanted to allow a signed in user on an OFBiz instance to get securely signed in on another OFBiz instance on another domain. My 1st try was a failure. I made an architectural mistake due to my initial test done locally and later using the trunk demo. Then I created another version based on the 1st one which I believe is sound and well architectured: OFBIZ-10307 Though some parts are still useful, I wanted to revert the 1st version. But then I stumbled upon an issue which took me a moment to identify. 1. I wanted to revert a HttpServletRequestWrapper I put in the ContextFilter. 2. But when I reverted it I got a weird error saying that the userLogin service could no longer handle an IN standard HttpServletRequest parameter 3. I did that and found that it was due to Tomcat 8.5 using a temporary and unachieved servlet4preview (for Servlet 4.0 preview) which hides the standard HttpServletRequest. 4. We have discussed that[1] and, thanks to Scott's idea, decided so far to use the type-validate child element of attribute. 5. Eventually we want to update Tomcat 8.5 to to Tomcat 9 (where Servlet 4.0 is totally, and I suppose well implemented) to get rid of other possible issues due to servlet4preview. 6. I think we don't want to revert to Tomcat 8, but that's a community decision HTH Jacques [1] thread "Re: svn commit: r1827439..."
