Juan,
Juan Ignacio Garzón wrote:
> Is there a way for making a .jar available to all the
> applications, but using each application's class loader, so that
> static fields are not shared between applications?
No. You will have to put the JAR file into each webapp's WEB-INF/lib
directory.
You cou
Larry,
We tried the "shared.loader" suggestion and it seems to be working fine.
Thanks very much for the suggestion.
Fran
Larry Isaacs wrote:
>
> Since you are using Tomcat 5, check out the "shared.loader"
> property specified in the catalina.properties file of your
> Tomcat instances. Yo
Thanks for the suggestions! I'll look into these and post back either way.
Fran
Fran Varin wrote:
>
> We are running multiple Tomcat 5.5 instances as Windows services. We have
> some .jar files that are common between the multiple Tomcat instances. We
> have been searching for a way to conf
Since you are using Tomcat 5, check out the "shared.loader"
property specified in the catalina.properties file of your
Tomcat instances. You could change it to use "catalina.home"
instead of "catalina.base", or add an additional "path".
Cheers,
Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: Fran Var
-
From: King, Patrick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 10:32 AM
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: RE: Classloader Question
A possible solution would be to use the analog of a "unix file link" for
windows based operating systems. One tomcat distribution woul
A possible solution would be to use the analog of a "unix file link" for
windows based operating systems. One tomcat distribution would have the
actual jar file, and the other tomcat distribution would have a "file
link" to the same file(the file link is simply a "pointer" to the actual
jar fil
Hello,
Fran Varin wrote:
The beauty of our WAS solution is that we can hot deploy various pieces like
the jars without having to do anything with the WARs and since we do not
have the jars contained in each WAR it makes maintenance much simpler.
Depending on the application, this approach makes a
The beauty of our WAS solution is that we can hot deploy various pieces like
the jars without having to do anything with the WARs and since we do not
have the jars contained in each WAR it makes maintenance much simpler.
Depending on the application, this approach makes a lot of sense. We do use
A
Hi,
this sounds like "repackage" would be a huge job.
If yes, I would suggest: learn ant
If not: You have to reload the apps anyway. So what do you achieve?
just my 2 cents.
R.
Am Freitag, 24. März 2006 16:19 schrieb Fran Varin:
> Yes, that is the exact situation we are attempting to avoid in T
I tend to agree with your postion. I'm not sure that Tomcat will see the
native Windows shortcut. I'll see if we can figure out how to do it. If you
have any ideas I'm all ears.
It sure would be nice if Tomcat had the ability to have the shared lib see
down the hierarchy or be able to put jars so
I run cygwin (a linux like application/environment) on my windows box at
home. When I create a symbolic link in that system and look at it frm
the windows side of it, it IS a shortcut.
try itI think it may work, but I am not sure that tomcat will see it
as cygwin does. Curious.
Fran
...as in Windows shortcut...I'll have to look into that possibility.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Classloader-question-t1332679.html#a3573968
Sent from the Tomcat - User forum at Nabble.com.
-
To unsu
SHORTCUT!
Fran Varin wrote:
aah...now I understand the reason it sounded foreign to me. We are a Windows
shop so, I'm not sure we have the same capability.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Classloader-question-t1332679.html#a3573581
Sent from the Tomcat - User forum at N
aah...now I understand the reason it sounded foreign to me. We are a Windows
shop so, I'm not sure we have the same capability.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Classloader-question-t1332679.html#a3573581
Sent from the Tomcat - User forum at Nabble.com.
--
Hi,
> Von: Fran Varin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This approach sounds promising...would you mind elaborating just a little
> on
> what you're thinking? I'm not sure I follow when you mention using a
> symbolic link into WEB-INF/lib.
it would require UNIX or LINUX system. A simple symbolic link:
ln -s /
This approach sounds promising...would you mind elaborating just a little on
what you're thinking? I'm not sure I follow when you mention using a
symbolic link into WEB-INF/lib.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Classloader-question-t1332679.html#a3573086
Sent from the Tomca
Yes, that is the exact situation we are attempting to avoid in Tomcat. In our
WSA implementation we can simply replace the effected JARS in one location
and it is implemented against all WARs running in that server's context. In
the illustration you provided below we would need to repackage, or at
Boris Unckel wrote:
Hello,
Von: Fran Varin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yes, quite correct on your statement regarding using "Application" as the
definition. The essence of what we are looking for is a similar behavior
with Tomcat. Our over arching goal is to minimize or eliminate the need
to have j
> From: Boris Unckel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Classloader question
>
> To the mailing-list: If you have an library which has not
> the explicit recommendation to put it in common/shared lib
> path (i.E. a special JDBC driver where the vendor recommends
&g
Hello Dave,
> Von: David Kerber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I understand the arguments on both sides, but tend to prefer the ease of
> maintenance of what you call "the single point of change in
> shared/lib". Is it possible to make this configurable, so both sides
> can be happy? Or is that too com
Boris Unckel wrote:
...
To the mailing-list: If you have an library which has not the explicit
recommendation to put it in common/shared lib path (i.E. a special JDBC
driver where the vendor recommends one to put it into shared) what do you
prefer - the single point of change in shared or the i
Hello,
> Von: Fran Varin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes, quite correct on your statement regarding using "Application" as the
> definition. The essence of what we are looking for is a similar behavior
> with Tomcat. Our over arching goal is to minimize or eliminate the need
> to have jars that are to b
Yes, quite correct on your statement regarding using "Application" as the
definition. The essence of what we are looking for is a similar behavior
with Tomcat. Our over arching goal is to minimize or eliminate the need to
have jars that are to be shared by more than one applicaiton (WAR) be copied
Hello Francis,
VARIN, FRANCIS A. wrote:
As mentioned above, we have used this class for several years in WAS.
In that case, the jar that contains the factory resides at the EAR
level and can instantiate classes that live in the associated WAR
files just fine. The problem only exists in Tomca
24 matches
Mail list logo
