Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 89844 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2009 09:20:43 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 16 Jun 2009 09:20:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 25011 invoked by uid 500); 16 Jun 2009 09:20:53 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 24933 invoked by uid 500); 16 Jun 2009 09:20:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 24925 invoked by uid 99); 16 Jun 2009 09:20:53 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:20:53 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jason.dillon@gmail.com designates 209.85.200.173 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.200.173] (HELO wf-out-1314.google.com) (209.85.200.173) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:20:44 +0000 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 25so1412201wfc.25 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:20:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:from:to :in-reply-to:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:references :x-mailer; bh=F+TEouicm2g/5q2PC3TtAd0z5CViSWHRhQQTEBbqAkw=; b=Vji6MdKtd2/rOijMqiRwsyvL0XIxWcMMfCyJeRhILs0iF8pU7Nyk568M1piFVooX/Y rRMHNewbIcrLdEqGJzDLxa0j1D8WkzAGlMyETzNe21KLc31+m/kPdrnSUUqvEVqnRE5F qosI3EcZTHoVBhv3mJoaBmrkQotBYbGsA746I= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type:mime-version :subject:date:references:x-mailer; b=gkTl34/RfnkE08ecLyNASpskWZcJYRTl68Att/+NqCu0siQZA/FPpDKYy3vjaxzkoU 1WGS9BN+HVasKVw5o9rtAVN4N8iNl4InKxayZ5sBBTJhjWcHqqZGBumjDQwqyWiO7P5Y vIlcdfaYnz0/S8bMcWQuNHrb4ufqmmq2bY91c= Received: by 10.143.3.4 with SMTP id f4mr4166809wfi.177.1245144024084; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:20:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.3? ([124.157.202.162]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 27sm692625wff.26.2009.06.16.02.20.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:20:23 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Jason Dillon Message-Id: From: Jason Dillon To: dev@geronimo.apache.org In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-21-548825574 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Subject: Re: Default war deployed w/o plan gets /WebApp_ID context? Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:19:57 +0700 References: <75668FCF-B59C-4E01-87D0-E52C3B2A0E17@planet57.com> <45f744e40906152301s33ae0218k8d0a09945989361@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --Apple-Mail-21-548825574 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think that is the case now, I was confused (still a little too) as to why the IMO, war file's name is more user friendly. > > -Rex > > 2009/6/16 Ivan > 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 > 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? > > --jason > > > > -- > Ivan > --Apple-Mail-21-548825574 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think that is the case now, I = was confused (still a little too) as to why the <web-app id=3D"" was = being used = instead.

--jason


On Jun 16, 2009, at 4:15 PM, Rex Wang wrote:

IMO, war = file's name is more user friendly.

-Rex

2009/6/16 Ivan <xhhsld@gmail.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 <jason@planet57.com>
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?

--jason



--
Ivan
=


= --Apple-Mail-21-548825574--