Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 92347 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2008 17:22:39 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Jun 2008 17:22:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 30675 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jun 2008 17:22:29 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 30650 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jun 2008 17:22:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list users@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 30639 invoked by uid 99); 3 Jun 2008 17:22:29 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:22:29 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jhmast.developer@gmail.com designates 209.85.132.248 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.132.248] (HELO an-out-0708.google.com) (209.85.132.248) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:21:40 +0000 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b36so433987ana.95 for ; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:21:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=qxLq0OAmXyzVMLQcJDIyg49avRlKrLBTK9PMG+y7KK0=; b=R6DwaBcaTECeIyYhh7BDzIsaP2Ld6usFTjrxzkYr4cTTHf9uXOUXhBz09jQHHj2bokte3Z9oV4EE2qhJLESrctCwFGjusdJLz5F/pv5wQiJAfJxyTmwCek/qsmiluawKVjqnfmevRmhaDynBfP1eqqtzVWOukdgGTFfqTsXWbl4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=EnUjdXPhRDCgXGMhjVjI+Wm1Dw9fMEKIGw1X+ZQb5TB6OIywjxXf6VCqbcjfxMfu17bBTMcEolm/fL5yQ41Q2wtvMBHYzLIsipgwNgYb75h+rdLsSwoRAlB7pXsNtaJ4W05RqBIxx7ymrgS8k2Uy1/yiSDH8oBFc7Dh3kfRo0nM= Received: by 10.100.7.1 with SMTP id 1mr17098793ang.47.1212513716508; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:21:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.127.1 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:21:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:21:56 -0400 From: "Jonathan Mast" To: "Tomcat Users List" Subject: Re: versus <% include %> In-Reply-To: <913936E7-51AC-49A5-B4E5-A15663E90B59@tchijov.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_3490_18383857.1212513716479" References: <913936E7-51AC-49A5-B4E5-A15663E90B59@tchijov.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_Part_3490_18383857.1212513716479 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I don't think they are exactly the same. I had something that was not working with but did for <%@ include %>. I understand this the new, XML-complaint way to do things, but there must be subtle differences in how things are being done between these 2 approaches. On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Andrei Tchijov wrote: > they are identical. you will want to use if you care to have > your JSP pages in form of valid XML. > > > On Jun 3, 2008, at 12:52 , Jonathan Mast wrote: > > I'm wondering if the <%@ include file="somefile.jsp" %> method of >> including >> a file is more error prone (on Tomcat) than > page="somefile.jsp" >> flush="true"/> approach? >> >> Any ideas would helpful, especially an explanation of what is being done >> under the hood when these 2 mechanisms are being invoked. >> >> Tomcat 5.5 >> Java 1.4.2 >> >> Thanks >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org > > ------=_Part_3490_18383857.1212513716479--