Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Yes, this is hard to compare to httpd, as in the case of Tomcat, there
is precise specification which defines a portable web application
packaging. I see the latest changes have all aimed at breaking
portability, and I don't like that at all.
I don't subscribe to this point of view, basically, if that was the
case, we wouldn't have META-INF/context.xml as a feature either (as just
one example).
Portability is not something that is enforced by Tomcat, but by the
spec. So if a user writes a portable webapp on weblogic, then the spec
(and tomcat) make that webapp being able to run on Tomcat. and the other
way around. However, pretty much every single servlet engine, Tomcat
included, does add additional features, useful to the users for the
frameworks.
If Tomcat didn't have any custom features, then it wouldn't be half as
popular as it is today.
This is history rewriting. Actually, people used it (in that order)
because of:
- it was a component of the RI, which meant not too many spec breaking
features, and that an app that ran on Tomcat was likely to run on the
production server (which was rarely Tomcat)
- the Apache brand
- relatively small and light
Writing a portable webapp, is doable, and essentially has nothing to do
with the optional feature set in Tomcat. If you want a portable webapp,
simply don't use the non portable features in Tomcat.
It's another strategy: add as many of the features that a few users ask
for, regardless of what the specification. This is what many commercial
appservers often do, basically. It's quite amazing you cannot seem to
accept that I do not like this policy.
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
