OK, I am thinking this is a pretty good idea now too, since seeing your and Marc's
emails. My last two thoughts on the matter (just playing Devil's advocate):
1. Doesn't it seem a bit sloppy to leave a bunch of classes loaded that
will never get dumped unless the server is shutdown? Just a matter of
elegance, I suppose.
2. What unforseen problems might arise in a large application with
interdependencies, such as included files that are overlooked -- if an
included file is deleted but the includer is not, what happens?
--
Scott Stirling
West Newton, MA
On 05 Jan 2001 15:58:07 -0800, Hans Bergsten wrote:
> Scott Stirling wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Craig.
> >
> > The ability to run JSP apps without any source JSPs must be maintained
> > for app vendors who want to ship without source code. Not sure if this
> > patch would interfere with that or not.
>
> It shouldn't; if you want to distribute JSP pages without source,
> you compile them to servlet classes and add mappings for the
> paths to the servlets in web.xml. The spec may be vague on this,
> but that's still what I believe is the recommendation stated in
> the section about precompilation.
>
> > A separate issue: if a user removes the source JSP, it may be OK to
> > remove the JSP class file, but what about the class loaded in memory
> > (assuming the server was running when the JSP was deleted)? To be
> > consistent you would have to unload that JSP class,
>
> Not necessarily unload, but remove all internal (automatic) mappings
> so that a request for the JSP always results in a 404.
>
> > and possibly any
> > associated objects (depending how JavaBeans and JSP are loaded in
> > classloaders in Tomcat). For example, if an application scope bean were
> > loaded by that JSP, would that bean be dumped with the classloader for
> > that JSP or not?
>
> Hmmm... I think that's overkill.
>
> Hans
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
