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: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Received:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:Subject:Date:To:X-Mailer;
  b=mrdtKB2aYcZkZWJ7AwmEannvIshdinKdITHukneywFWebXemiIbwoGX5Hn1eYCwf/by6DFw1WsQ0e234jca6Wf+/V/SQDNEiBED4cn1K9uy+RSlVtwq2qc/lQEqaGL+RZZPaRFu/Avy8UASZLRaXyFHxxh+KJLpf5dG/M7kG65M=
  ;
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2)
In-Reply-To: <43BC11C6.1070608@coredevelopers.net>
References: <74e15baa0510301845id9d118ucc4346d627048486@mail.gmail.com>
 <43BC11C6.1070608@coredevelopers.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <BC1FF3F1-C7D0-48CE-8AE9-81880BB1972E@yahoo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: geronimo-web.xml, container-config, container-specific namespaces
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 10:48:22 -0800
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org

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).

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?

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.
> **********************************/
>