https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45979
--- Comment #4 from Dan Armbrust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-09 15:44:25 PST --- WRT the design, I do not know all of the other use cases. I expect that this decision was arrived at to simplify complexity, or other reasonable reasons. But from my use case, the behaviour certainly violates the Principals of Least Surprises. It seems that if Tomcat had a way to know that it placed a copy of the context.xml file into the conf subfolder, then it would be trivial to have it automatically replace it again, whenever it re-expands the war file. Yes? All that follows is based on what may be faulty guesses about how things currently work: So the real issue becomes knowing if config file was placed in the conf subfolder by tomcat, or by an administrator? Couldn't Tomcat just place a flag (even just a comment - rather hackish but effective) into the xml file when it copies it? Then later, check for the presence of that flag to determine if it should overwrite it when redeploying a war file? No flag - current behaviour. Flag - overwrite the file with the one from the war. If the behaviour stays as it - is seems like tomcat should be throwing out a warning when it will be ignoring a context.xml file found in a war file, because one already existed in the conf subfolder. Otherwise, users can run into all sorts of hard to track when the file they think is being used, isn't. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
