-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Chris,
On 1/26/15 8:05 PM, Chris Arnold wrote: >>> Yeah, that document is evidently a pack of lies. Specifically, >>> the "path" and "docbase" attributes in <Context> are ignored >>> in META-INF/context.xml files, and you really shouldn't have >>> your <Context> anywhere else (except in >>> conf/[engine]/[host]/[appname].xml, which behaves almost the >>> same way). >>> >>> Best thing to do is to name the web application the same as >>> where you want it to be deployed and not try to re-write >>> anything. >>> >>> Is there a particular reason you want to map / to /share >>> instead of /share to /share? >> >> Ease of use and it worked in a previous installment. > > I think this goes against what you are saying in the above text > but, I just got a reply from the alfresco mailinglist. Here is what > was said: > > The way we got around this was to just tell tomcat to deploy Share > at / (ROOT) as well as at /share. To do that, we added the > following line to the very end of our tomcat server.xml file (5 > lines from the end, just before the line reading “</host>”): > > <Context path="" debug="0" docBase="share" /> > > I don’t know if that’s exactly the right way to go about it, but > it’s worked well for us for about 4.5 years now. I'm surprised that the Alfresco team is still giving-out advice that was appropriate in the mid-2000s. Some notes: 1. Don't put <Context> in server.xml. Just don't. 2. "debug" hasn't been used in ... forever. 3. path="" is bad, and isn't necessary if you follow #1 Normally, docBase="share" would be bad, because it's relative to the host's appBase and would result in double-deployment. In your case, you want (?) double-deployment so it's not a big deal. Note that you are therefore running *two* copies of the Alfresco "share" application in your server. That may impact your capacity planning. Also, you (or they?) said that you can't re-base the application to "/", so I'm not sure why they are recommending that you do that. Honestly, that application should be written to be re-baseable without a problem. I'm disappointed with Alfresco that it's not. > I still have a concern with this as we have other sites that we > need to access at the http://domain.tld level and it seems to me ( > I could e understanding his solution wrong) that above solution > will point all http(s)://domain.tld requests to /share. Am I > misunderstanding his solution? Remember that Tomcat controls virtually nothing: if you deploy something on "/" in Tomcat, but don't proxy it in httpd, then it effectively does not exist. So if you only proxy "/share", then "/" doesn't matter. Is everything else currently working? Just the problem with "/share"? - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJUx70/AAoJEBzwKT+lPKRYVQEP/2nSC7lyg8but7sw/n2zrh0o TqR+Z+MLQJb+pAY5x3ba4Gn+TQvve6XrLkdCBb+ebhOoAz36fIG+Nmb8QemmtXgs aVud0ogbqtvUOL2D67Hitw/yesIzCODzrjv0xX3QkM4As8doSF/ntRCDndlco8TI Jw2fDQMEtjwog8DnMo09H6kwCTOSamzAGG5TDSO3nAWdDErMWwaf9ytltZMo8Ran aG3ZTFpgMg3C6p/txGKxToNFWolP7PTve+jtzn774eGZTktyFWyhA9NKC4NCSwlb 4CGWG8x13BcdSBpqTDgw1UnwDHLNSO4mLkj01E2JAa8JoiGZ7MKgxfyA0e1Bon2p zkk/3XmJ992tSvzIWxwIj38dcdACjTT9sU2cHQO6DB8JxnFO/RM3JXjYCMuh6Up7 +VORu14gZJOPQSPQ8kr+Gctbdb60eAh2G9TLVFT+yxm1vpctzjMQJFmtgsGL8x9y OwaDn7oeVHy5zAz8B/faHJckLTEkgPibkKavEFjyGysABo27wvtA5FXIvHUyezO6 yo75Tu5cFsK5ei3n/QJ+jnxMKJZdXYC2e/FiAskwPIvoKBiPf2avewEjXhr33/Y6 fzWc63qGqe80oryJ4x078M2OhOiENvphpCbfb2CHEwRSzyRPjXUTNcLhCCcoReSm c8CyeBm5y5sPDUnve2/T =39Gx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
