Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <38068009.D60E4428@eng.sun.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 18:14:49 -0700
From: "Anil K. Vijendran" <akv@eng.sun.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: jakarta-tomcat/src/share/org/apache/tomcat/core
 Context.java
References: <19991014235741.9786.qmail@hyperreal.org>
 <380677D6.AF7A0163@eng.sun.com> <38067998.59499C7@eng.sun.com>
 <38067BBB.5ADA62E7@eng.sun.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Good points, Jason. I'll look into the getAttributeNames() thingy.

Also, I don't want to allow someone to setAttribute, this one
("servlet.classpath"). (Security?) What do you think?

Other vendors don't need to implement it; if this attribute isn't present
then we try to use an init parameter. However, if someone wants to pick the
JSP engine and use it with their servlet engine, we felt some name slightly
more neutral (since it isn't a servlet engine from the Apache software
project) would be better.

Re: name,  whatever brings consensus is fine.

Jason Hunter wrote:

> > i don't see any verbiage in the spec that reserves anything. and it
> > doesn't start with javax.
>
> Yes, but the spec talks about making an additional variable available in
> the context.  This doesn't do that -- this short circuits the
> getAttribute() method.  With the code as it stands there's this
> attribute available that's not listed by getAttributeNames(), and if I
> assign something to "servlet.classpath" my value will never be seen.
>
> That's two violations of the spec.  Spec says getAttributeNames() lists
> available attributes.  Spec says setAttribute() with a value will let
> you get the value with getAttribute().
>
> At minimum I'd think we should bury this under the rug by making it
> org.apache.tomcat.* so no one will know we're being nasty.  I kind of
> prefer that to making the variable public because then it appears like
> other people have to implement it since the RI provides it.
>
> > the reason we didn't pick org.apache.* and picked servlet.* is
> > because this is also intended to be implemented by other servlet
> > engines.... (it would
> > be weird for other engines to implement org.apache.foobar...)
>
> Hmm... If other vendors are to implement it then maybe it needs to go
> public.  Argh!  "josper.servlet.classpath" maybe?  I dunno anymore.
> Other opinions?
>
> -jh-
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

--
Peace, Anil +<:-)