From: Brian G. <br...@qu...> - 2003-03-26 21:26:37
|
> Well don't beat yourself up - I dread to think what it was like before :) Heh, come out for a beer sometime and I'll tell you stories... > OK I see that. Though I have never thought of using WM like that, since > webapps came along. This happens a lot. > > Any site that deploys more than one WM-based web-app in a servlet > > container. > > ...but only if they use a shared WM in the container /lib right? If WM's > jar is in each webapp's own /lib then they will all be on separate > classloaders and there will be no crosstalk between webapps and their WM > settings/brokers. Right, but its a robustness thing. What if someone tried to be clever and put it in the container /lib (or some site-wide .rc script puts it in the class path). Then the second web-app to be deployed would break. It seems pretty bad if WM apps started failing if someone tried to put it in the site-wide lib (and, there have been cases where I've been forced to do so, for classloader reasons I don't fully understand.) > OK... I see this I think, though it sounds a lot more work than the > proposal I have made to augment the current system... I think it can be done in stages, so that you solve your current problem without doing all the work now and without taking the WM interface further in the direction its going in now. |