On Jun 16, 2009, at 12:08 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
I have to retract this with some shame... *blush*
I didn't realize that all of the silly webapps I was testing had their <web-app id="WebApp_ID" ...
It's news to me that tomcat does this.... it must be a result of feeding the web.xml into digester. I'm pretty sure jetty ignores any id attributes.... this is pretty weird use of the id attribute IMHO and is certainly beyond the spec.
On Jun 16, 2009, at 1:29 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Even a random context would be better than always using "/WebApp_ID"... but I would imagine that it should first try and create a unique context from the filename, encoding muck as needed. Otherwise, how about something more like "/webapp<counter>".
On Jun 16, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Shawn Jiang wrote:
Agreed, use war file name as the default context is a good start.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Ivan <email@example.com>
WebApp_ID is not so friendly, not sure when it begins, this should be improved, maybe we could use the war file's name as the default context.
2009/6/16 Jason Dillon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Aren't we trying to do something a little bit more intelligent about picking a context for deployed wars w/o a plan.xml? Seems like all of these "default/..." wars want to mount under /WebApp_ID... forcing me to make a plan for them, just to set the context.
Is this how it always worked?