Well, I'd love to rename the file, but didn't think I'd have as good a
shot at getting consensus buy-in for that. I do think it could be
confusing for upgraders and therefore thought I'd get some push back.
I'd also like to try this under Tomcat 6 sometime, but I just don't have
the cycles to do that this week. I think a more important step is to
fix the Portlet deployment situation so it doesn't rewrite the web.xml
to a an ancient servlet spec version, which makes using any of the
latest servlet/jsp stuff impossible (which is presumably one reason
you'd be using Tomcat 6).
If I did make a suggestion for the renaming, it would probably be to
rename it "uPortal_tomcat_5.5.xml" or something similar. I always
thought "uportal.xml" and "uportal55.xml" suggested a problem with the
'naming convention'.
But overall at this point, I'd rather make the very very small, slight
change of simply removing the Tomcat 5.0 config file and commented out
lines from build.properties. This change would not it impossible to do
any other rename change in the future, it's just a step along the way.
---- Cris J H
Jason Shao wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, at 11:36 PM, Andrew Petro wrote:
1. Should the current uPortal55.xml file be renamed to uPortal.xml? This
would be consistent with past practice, but potentially confusing for
upgraders. Or Does uPortal{VERSION}.xml become the new naming
convention? Or is there tooling that can always generate the right
target file for us?
2. Do we need a tweaked file for Tomcat 6?
Jason
--
Join your friends and colleagues at JA-SIG with Altitude: June 24-27, 2007 in
Denver, CO USA.
Featuring keynotes by: Phil Windley, Matt Raible, Matt Asay
Sessions on topics including: CAS, uPortal, Portlets, Sakai, Identity
Management, and Open Source
For more information & registration visit:
http://www.ja-sig.org/conferences/07summer/index.html
---
You are currently subscribed to uportal-dev@lists.ja-sig.org as: [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
