geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <d...@iq80.com>
Subject Re: Web schemas -- one or many?
Date Thu, 25 Aug 2005 22:51:27 GMT
On Aug 24, 2005, at 8:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> So, I realize there is a bit of weakness in my idea, namely a lot  
> of web apps don't need a plan: so in my rosy future, there would  
> need to be a "default web container" that these would get pushed  
> to.  So, how about this idea:
>
> a "fake" common schema that includes the common elements and a  
> single [virtual-]host element
> a jetty schema that is the same except allowing multiple virtual- 
> host elements
> a tomcat schema that is the same but includes the additional tomcat  
> specific elements.
>
> The tomcat and jetty builders can both change the common namespace  
> to their own namespace and deploy as if it is their own.
>
> This takes care of 100% of the cases you mentioned :-)  However, it  
> doesn't take care of the <cross-context/> element which can be put  
> in the tomcat config without making it undeployable on jetty.  I'll  
> actually weaken my case a bit by pointing out that the tomcat  
> specific gbeans relating to the tomcat-realm and valve-chain should  
> probably come from tomcat specific xml in the tomcat schema rather  
> than plain gbean definitions.
>
> Could you live with this proposal?

Are you proposing that we support 3 configuration file formats:  
geronimo-web.xml, geronimo-jetty.xml, and geronimo-tomcat.xml?

-dain

Mime
View raw message