jsr369-experts@servlet-spec.java.net

[jsr369-experts] [22-WEB-INF/classes/META-INF/resources] PROVISIONALLY CLOSED

From: Edward Burns <edward.burns_at_oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 16:20:38 -0800

[Breaking this out to a separate thread]

On 23/01/2015 06:44, Shing Wai Chan wrote:

SWC> If we don't allow META-INF/resources/WEB-INF/classes, then
SWC> should we disallow WEB-INF/classes/META-INF/resources?

SWC> I ask this as I see the following issue
SWC> https://java.net/jira/browse/SERVLET_SPEC-22

>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 09:27:11 +0000, Mark Thomas <markt_at_apache.org> said:

MT> Oddly enough I think that should be allowed. :)

Considering you filed 22-WEB-INF/classes/META-INF/resources I'm not
surprised!

MT> There is a genuine use case for this - folks working with IDEs - and if
MT> we blocked this it would make life difficult for those users and
MT> generate work for the IDE developers to work around - all for no good
MT> reason I can see.

MT> Whether we include this in the spec (I don't see the harm) or whether we
MT> leave up to container developers is TBD. It would make things easier for
MT> the IDE developers if all containers implemented this the same way.

>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:42:20 +0100, Greg Wilkins <gregw_at_intalio.com> said:

GW> I understand the IDE use case, but I'm not sure that
GW> WEB-INF/classes/META-INF/resources should be supported by the spec.

GW> While I would very much like it that we could establish exactly the same
GW> behaviour
GW> for any jar from WEB-INF/lib when it is expanded into WEB-INF/classes, I
GW> don't think
GW> that is actually possible, at least not for the general case of N jars.

GW> Specifically anything that uses web.xml fragments, service discovery,
GW> manifest data, or any other name clashes is going to have problems.

GW> I think the upside is small (and already covered by various development
GW> modes) and the potential down side is large.

>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:29:14 +0000, Mark Thomas <markt_at_apache.org> said:

MT> Overall, I still think this is worth doing but if the EG isn't convinced
MT> I'm fine with that too.

I'm not convinced either, and I'm content to Mark continue to offer this
as a Tomcat differentiator. I'm provisionally marking this as WONT_FIX.

Ed

-- 
| edward.burns_at_oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017
| 24 days til DevNexus 2015
| 34 days til JavaLand 2015
| 44 days til CONFESS 2015