Re: Default war deployed w/o plan gets /WebApp_ID context?
WebApp_ID is not so friendly, not sure when it begins, this should be improved, maybe we could use the war file's name as the default context. 2009/6/16 Jason Dillon ja...@planet57.com Aren't we trying to do something a little bit more intelligent about picking a context for deployed wars w/o a plan.xml? Seems like all of these default/... wars want to mount under /WebApp_ID... forcing me to make a plan for them, just to set the context. Is this how it always worked? --jason -- Ivan
Re: Default war deployed w/o plan gets /WebApp_ID context?
Agreed, use war file name as the default context is a good start. On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Ivan xhh...@gmail.com wrote: WebApp_ID is not so friendly, not sure when it begins, this should be improved, maybe we could use the war file's name as the default context. 2009/6/16 Jason Dillon ja...@planet57.com Aren't we trying to do something a little bit more intelligent about picking a context for deployed wars w/o a plan.xml? Seems like all of these default/... wars want to mount under /WebApp_ID... forcing me to make a plan for them, just to set the context. Is this how it always worked? --jason -- Ivan -- Shawn
Re: Default war deployed w/o plan gets /WebApp_ID context?
Even a random context would be better than always using / WebApp_ID... but I would imagine that it should first try and create a unique context from the filename, encoding muck as needed. Otherwise, how about something more like /webappcounter. --jason On Jun 16, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Shawn Jiang wrote: Agreed, use war file name as the default context is a good start. On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Ivan xhh...@gmail.com wrote: WebApp_ID is not so friendly, not sure when it begins, this should be improved, maybe we could use the war file's name as the default context. 2009/6/16 Jason Dillon ja...@planet57.com Aren't we trying to do something a little bit more intelligent about picking a context for deployed wars w/o a plan.xml? Seems like all of these default/... wars want to mount under / WebApp_ID... forcing me to make a plan for them, just to set the context. Is this how it always worked? --jason -- Ivan -- Shawn
Re: Default war deployed w/o plan gets /WebApp_ID context?
I have to retract this with some shame... *blush* I didn't realize that all of the silly webapps I was testing had their web-app id=WebApp_ID ... OMG. --jason On Jun 16, 2009, at 1:29 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: Even a random context would be better than always using / WebApp_ID... but I would imagine that it should first try and create a unique context from the filename, encoding muck as needed. Otherwise, how about something more like /webappcounter. --jason On Jun 16, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Shawn Jiang wrote: Agreed, use war file name as the default context is a good start. On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Ivan xhh...@gmail.com wrote: WebApp_ID is not so friendly, not sure when it begins, this should be improved, maybe we could use the war file's name as the default context. 2009/6/16 Jason Dillon ja...@planet57.com Aren't we trying to do something a little bit more intelligent about picking a context for deployed wars w/o a plan.xml? Seems like all of these default/... wars want to mount under / WebApp_ID... forcing me to make a plan for them, just to set the context. Is this how it always worked? --jason -- Ivan -- Shawn
Re: Default war deployed w/o plan gets /WebApp_ID context?
On Jun 16, 2009, at 12:08 AM, Jason Dillon wrote: I have to retract this with some shame... *blush* I didn't realize that all of the silly webapps I was testing had their web-app id=WebApp_ID ... It's news to me that tomcat does this it must be a result of feeding the web.xml into digester. I'm pretty sure jetty ignores any id attributes this is pretty weird use of the id attribute IMHO and is certainly beyond the spec. thanks david jencks OMG. --jason On Jun 16, 2009, at 1:29 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: Even a random context would be better than always using / WebApp_ID... but I would imagine that it should first try and create a unique context from the filename, encoding muck as needed. Otherwise, how about something more like /webappcounter. --jason On Jun 16, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Shawn Jiang wrote: Agreed, use war file name as the default context is a good start. On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Ivan xhh...@gmail.com wrote: WebApp_ID is not so friendly, not sure when it begins, this should be improved, maybe we could use the war file's name as the default context. 2009/6/16 Jason Dillon ja...@planet57.com Aren't we trying to do something a little bit more intelligent about picking a context for deployed wars w/o a plan.xml? Seems like all of these default/... wars want to mount under / WebApp_ID... forcing me to make a plan for them, just to set the context. Is this how it always worked? --jason -- Ivan -- Shawn
Re: Default war deployed w/o plan gets /WebApp_ID context?
On Jun 16, 2009, at 2:40 PM, David Jencks wrote: On Jun 16, 2009, at 12:08 AM, Jason Dillon wrote: I have to retract this with some shame... *blush* I didn't realize that all of the silly webapps I was testing had their web-app id=WebApp_ID ... It's news to me that tomcat does this it must be a result of feeding the web.xml into digester. I'm pretty sure jetty ignores any id attributes this is pretty weird use of the id attribute IMHO and is certainly beyond the spec. thanks david jencks Hrm... maybe its not such a good thing to let Tomcat do that? --jason
Re: Default war deployed w/o plan gets /WebApp_ID context?
IMO, war file's name is more user friendly. -Rex 2009/6/16 Ivan xhh...@gmail.com WebApp_ID is not so friendly, not sure when it begins, this should be improved, maybe we could use the war file's name as the default context. 2009/6/16 Jason Dillon ja...@planet57.com Aren't we trying to do something a little bit more intelligent about picking a context for deployed wars w/o a plan.xml? Seems like all of these default/... wars want to mount under /WebApp_ID... forcing me to make a plan for them, just to set the context. Is this how it always worked? --jason -- Ivan
Re: Default war deployed w/o plan gets /WebApp_ID context?
I think that is the case now, I was confused (still a little too) as to why the web-app id= was being used instead. --jason On Jun 16, 2009, at 4:15 PM, Rex Wang wrote: IMO, war file's name is more user friendly. -Rex 2009/6/16 Ivan xhh...@gmail.com WebApp_ID is not so friendly, not sure when it begins, this should be improved, maybe we could use the war file's name as the default context. 2009/6/16 Jason Dillon ja...@planet57.com Aren't we trying to do something a little bit more intelligent about picking a context for deployed wars w/o a plan.xml? Seems like all of these default/... wars want to mount under / WebApp_ID... forcing me to make a plan for them, just to set the context. Is this how it always worked? --jason -- Ivan
