On Thu, 2002-03-14 at 04:26, Age Mooy wrote:
>
> Will all paths (in config files etc.) still be relative if you choose to generate to
>another servlet container
> ? I've noticed that the snapshot tdks have the tendency to eval the
>${applicationRoot} var into an absolute
> path. This makes apps a little hard to move to a production container.
That expansion shouldn't happen and I will fix that.
> Age
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brekke, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 19:18
> > To: 'Jason van Zyl '; '[EMAIL PROTECTED] '
> > Subject: RE: [TDK] Usage
> >
> >
> > +1 to both the cvs-layout and using a installed servlet container. I
> > haven't looked in the tdk lately, but we should be able to generate the
> > application anywhere also, not only within the tdk tree ( I think this was
> > functional already ).
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jason van Zyl
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 3/13/02 9:44 AM
> > Subject: [TDK] Usage
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've been cleaning up the TDK for the last day and I wanted to ask a few
> > questions about usage and see what kind of response I get.
> >
> > To date the mode most commonly used in the TDK is to have the project
> > generated within the servlet container. I believe this is easy to get
> > started but is generally impractical for developing projects.
> >
> > There has long been available a mode where a 'cvs layout' is produced
> > that looks something like what scarab does. It's exploits the
> > ${applicationRoot} variable to allow a Turbine project to be run from
> > its 'cvs layout' location directly. This method isn't perfect,
> > especially when URLs are used to retrieve resources - in this case some
> > content must still be copied into the servlet container. But at any rate
> > I think we should settle on the one mode and run with it. I believe the
> > 'cvs layout' mode is more viable in the long run.
> >
> > I was also thinking of adding an option where the TDK project generation
> > process would obey a ${container.home} setting if someone wanted to use
> > an already installed servlet container. We could still include a default
> > servlet container but people could use what they have if they wish.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> > --
> > jvz.
> >
> > Jason van Zyl
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > http://tambora.zenplex.org
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://tambora.zenplex.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
