geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jules Gosnell <ju...@coredevelopers.net>
Subject Re: geronimo-web.xml, container-config, container-specific namespaces
Date Thu, 05 Jan 2006 09:54:01 GMT
David Jencks wrote:

> It is possible (I think) to do what you want, but I do not recommend  
> it.  I would prefer that you use external plans, and write 2 new  
> modules inside configs, to deploy your sample to jetty and to  
> tomcat.  Take the geronimo-web.xml out of the app and put it in src/ 
> plan/plan.xml.
>
> However, if you wish to defy me :-) you can use the generic schema  
> http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/j2ee/web-1.0  (geronimo- 
> web-1.0.xsd) with sections in a container-config for the jetty and  
> tomcat specific parts.  These would use the namespace/schemas e.g.  
> http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/web/jetty/config-1.0 (geronimo- 
> jetty-config-1.0.xsd).


I really feel that it is valuable for WADI-enabled apps to port easily 
between Jetty and Tomcat (and hopefully other)-based containers.

I would be much happier with one proprietary dd or plan, than two. So, I 
am still on course for somehow merging the two.

As to whether this dd/plan lives in or outside the deployable - I'm not 
to worried. I imagine that WADI will ship its demo webapp with the dd 
inside for self-containedness' sake, but I have no religious views on 
the subject.

> A problem with this approach might be that you are including a gbean  
> in the tomcat config that is not needed in the jetty config.  I don't  
> understand why this would be there anyway, but I don't think you can  
> have gbeans in the container-config part.
>
> Is it possible to adjust the jetty and tomcat clustering configs to  
> be roughly the same and include the element in geronimo-web-1.0.xsd?

I think some form of adjustment here will be the sensible way forward.

Thanks for the pointers,


Jules

>
> hope this helps
> david jencks
>
> On Jan 4, 2006, at 10:19 AM, Jules Gosnell wrote:
>
>> Aaron, David, or anyone in the know :-)
>>
>> Maybe you can help me with this:
>>
>> I have a WADI demo webapp.
>>
>> To get it running with Jetty, I need a WEB-INF/geronimo-web.xml  that 
>> looks like this:
>>
>> <web-app xmlns="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/j2ee/web/ 
>> jetty-1.0" configId="wadi">
>>
>>    <context-root>/wadi</context-root>
>>    <context-priority-classloader>false</context-priority-classloader>
>>    <session-manager>org.codehaus.wadi.jetty5.JettyManager</session- 
>> manager>
>>
>> </web-app>
>>
>> To get it running with Tomcat, I have to have a geronimo-web.xml  
>> that looks like this:
>>
>> <web-app xmlns="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/j2ee/web/ 
>> tomcat-1.0" configId="wadi">
>>
>>    <context-root>/wadi</context-root>
>>    <context-priority-classloader>false</context-priority-classloader>
>>    <manager>WADI</manager>
>>
>>    <gbean name="WADI"  
>> class="org.apache.geronimo.tomcat.cluster.WADIGBean"/>
>>
>> </web-app>
>>
>>
>> What I would like, is a single geronimo-web.xml that contains both  
>> Jetty and TC configs, merged.
>>
>> Do you know if this is possible, if so, would you mind pointing me  
>> in the right direction ?
>>
>> Much appreciated,
>>
>>
>> Jules
>>
>>
>>
>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> "Open Source is a self-assembling organism. You dangle a piece of
>> string into a super-saturated solution and a whole operating-system
>> crystallises out around it."
>>
>> /**********************************
>> * Jules Gosnell
>> * Partner
>> * Core Developers Network (Europe)
>> *
>> *    www.coredevelopers.net
>> *
>> * Open Source Training & Support.
>> **********************************/
>>


-- 
"Open Source is a self-assembling organism. You dangle a piece of
string into a super-saturated solution and a whole operating-system
crystallises out around it."

/**********************************
 * Jules Gosnell
 * Partner
 * Core Developers Network (Europe)
 *
 *    www.coredevelopers.net
 *
 * Open Source Training & Support.
 **********************************/


Mime
View raw message