On 03/09/2015 13:56, Stuart Douglas wrote:
> I am with Greg here, I prefer default-context-path to default-context-root.
>
> default-context-path is more in keeping with everything else in the spec, IMHO the fact that some
> non spec extensions have called it something different should not stop us adopting a spec consistent
> naming convention.
+1
I still don't like this feature but if it is going in it should be
consistent with the rest of the spec.
Mark
>
> Stuart
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Edward Burns" <edward.burns_at_oracle.com>
>> To: jsr369-experts_at_servlet-spec.java.net
>> Sent: Thursday, 3 September, 2015 10:33:24 PM
>> Subject: [jsr369-experts] Re: [servlet-spec users] Re: Re: Re: SERVLET_SPEC-137: Allow context root
>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 17:53:26 +1000, Greg Wilkins <gregw_at_webtide.com>
>>>>>>> said:
>>
>> GW> I would much prefer the name context-path or default-context-path as this
>> GW> directly relates to the getContextPath method.
>> GW> Calling it context-root is confusing.
>>
>> I'm going to come out in favor of <default-context-root> here. Greg,
>> while you are correct to point out the desired parity with the
>> getContextPath() method name, the fact that so many of the other
>> containers call it context-root makes me favor that option.
>>
>> Ed
>> --
>> | edward.burns_at_oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017
>> | 43 Business days til JavaOne 2015
>> | 58 Business days til DOAG 2015
>>