On 04/03/13 16:45, Bill Burke wrote:
> myself and users have come across a situation where we want to include
> an *optional*, non-annotated Application instance in our third-party
> library distributions. The problem is section 2.3.2 states that all
> Application classes have a servlet defined and added for them whether
> they are annotated with @ApplicationPath or not. Those not annotated
> that don't have a servlet mapping will cause a deployment exception.
That is strange; should it be "/*" in this case ?
>
> IMO, this wording should be changed. If there is no servlet-mapping for
> the automatically added servlet, then this should result in not
> deploying the Application.
I don't understand what it means - can you clarify please ?
>
> I dont think this is a backward compatibility issue. Existing
> applications will still run if the wording is changed.
Should it be sorted out at the implementation level, by disabling the
scanning of deployed web applications ?
Cheers, Sergey