Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of ammulder@gmail.com designates
 64.233.162.193 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition;
        b=LPTXqpOz/sMXJK7CCtv6A+fUZdTASRtH6jK9y0ax7bcEQA844Qjr9NPuODBqQRPikD0/y6+S10MrRGKYhfl4rTJIc/EKyOoNpTZ37kkp8NNzUjQD/rOtDTS7HYowYLJ9bpr7lcqeh8YMl8nKF+9JNATrvkz87pxOvR4CbVt8rWg=
Message-ID: <74e15baa0510301845id9d118ucc4346d627048486@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:45:02 -0500
From: Aaron Mulder <ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu>
Sender: ammulder@gmail.com
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: geronimo-web.xml, container-config, container-specific namespaces
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

David J,

I thought when you added the separate Tomcat and Jetty namespaces, you
were going to remove the container-config section from the generic
geronimo-web.xml, but it seems that it's still there.  Jeff thinks
maybe it's for something like the console, where we want it to work in
both Tomcat and Jetty yet we might still require some
container-specific extensions (makes sense to me).

If we're going to keep the generic geronimo-web.xml and keep the
container-config section in it, can we drop the container-specific
namespaces?  I think you favored the namespaces because if you use a
container-specific namespace then any container-specific settings
could be validated in XML, but I think that's pretty useless if it
only applies if you're willing to force your app to only deploy in one
container or the other.  (That is to say, if you want your web app to
run in either Tomcat or Jetty -- which is probably the normal case,
then you can't use a container-specific namespace so it doesn't matter
what the benefits of container-specific namespaces are.)

The only way I can see the container-specific namespaces being
beneficial is if the container-config became an "any" and then we
namespaced the content that went within it -- so the overall file
always used the generic namespace but then you used a
container-specific one for the contents of the container-config
element only.

Am I missing something?

Thanks,
    Aaron