https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69135
jke...@apache.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEEDINFO |NEW
--- Comment #6 from jke...@apache.org ---
I think you have a better understanding of the specification than I do. There
is no problem with applying the fix that you find most logical.
On our side, we have a somewhat unique situation. In our software, we use
Pax-Web and the JSP engine internally. Additionally, our software allows
modules to provide JSP tags. Some of our clients have created these kinds of
out-of-context includes, and they worked fine until we updated our version of
Pax-Web, which now uses the embedded JSP engine from Tomcat. This update
impacted one of our clients.
It's just that we asked our customers to migrate usages that were no longer
working for them:
<%@ include file="../include.jspf"%>
to use a workaround:
<%@ include file="/META-INF/include.jspf"%>
This was, to us, the only way to fix the situation currently for our customer.
However, if the rules are that JSP fragments should be under /META-INF/tags and
relative/absolute include files, then it's fine. But we will have to
communicate this again to our customers, who may be impacted by this behavior
update in case of a fix.
The fix and implementation are up to you, and I trust you to implement or
correct what seems most logical according to the specification. I mainly wanted
to bring this to your attention through this ticket.
If the specification indicates that the current behavior needs to be revised, I
have no issues with that.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
