geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Web schemas -- one or many?
Date Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:05:03 GMT

On Aug 25, 2005, at 3:51 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> 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?

yes.  Also, a valid geronimo-web document is a valid geronimo-jetty or 
geronimo-tomcat document after changng the namespace.

david jencks

>
> -dain
>


Mime
View raw message