Scott, Miguel, Kelly, and I sat down today to try to resolve some of the problems with the existing "WAR" deployment design. Here is our strawman proposal for how it should work in the future (we can go into more detail on the rationale). Note that legacy mode would be supported for 1.6 to maintain backwards compatibility.
Either: 1a) A new tag in GWT modules to specify a subdir in the output folder to deploy into, something like: <deploy-path value="/shortName" /> - This specifies a subdirectory inside your WAR directory that GWT should output public files (and compiled files) into. For backwards compatibility, the default value if this tag isn't specified will be the fully-qualified module name. - Our project creator could emit a either a module short name, or a constant name (such as "gwt" or "compiled"). - A user could also specify "/" to dump the output directly into the top level of the WAR directory. - <deploy-path> tags are inherited and last-one wins. or: 1b) A new attribute "deploy-path" on the <module> tag. - As above, except that the value is not inherited. 2) GWTShell (or another entry point) requires you to specify the modules you care about on the command line. This is critical because during hosted mode development, we need to create a map of deploy-path -> module name. It also breaks potential circular dependencies between static html files and public resources. It also gives an easy answer to "What does Compile/Browse do?" in hosted mode. 3) The GWT module <servlet> tag is deprecated; it only works in legacy mode and is ignored (or generates a warning) in WAR mode. Instead, you should configure servlets in your web.xml. -- Bob Vawter Google Web Toolkit Team --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
