On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Remy Maucherat wrote:

> > On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Szymon Stasik wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I'm running Tomcat 4.0-b3 (standalone) and have some bit weired problem.
> > > I know that it is possible to have eg.:
> > >
> > > user1/WEB-INF
> > > user2/WEB-INF
> > >
> > > with apriopriate contexts:
> > >
> > > <Context path="/userX"
> > >   docBase="/home/userX/tomcat"
> > >   debug="0"
> > >   reloadable="false">
> > >   <Logger className="org.apache.catalina.logger.FileLogger"
> > >     prefix="framework_userX_log." suffix=".txt"
> > >     timestamp="true"/>
> > > </Context>
> > >
> > > so both users can run/develop their application with no conflicts with
> > > other. My idea is to run cocoon (1.8) with this environment. I have
> > > (hopefully) solved classloader problem in cocoon, so even XSP is working
> > > good for me while having all jars in user1/WEB-INF/lib. Now I'd like
> > > user2 to have his own copy of all the jars in user2/WEB-INF/lib so he
> > > can use modified wersion of his own jars or cocoon or any other classes.
> > > AFAIK in Tomcat 4 it should be possible to allow simultanous work of
> > > both users with their own versions of same classes.
> > >
> > > However the results are that both users receive instances of classes
> > > from one of them. Strange thing - I was testing Class objects - all
> > > classes from my jars seems to be different for both users (eg testing
> > > org.apache.cocoon.Cocoon.hashCode() or any other class from WEB-INF/lib)
> > > but the code executed is the same for both users and for both staticaly
> > > (servlet) and dynamicaly (xsp) loaded code.
> > >
> > > Is it my misconfiguration, misunderstadnig or wrong behaviour of Tomcat
> > > or Cocoon?
> > >
> >
> > It's (c) wrong behavior of Tomcat.  Remy is currently investigating a fix
> > for this.
> 
> As I said privately, I have a fix. Should I commit it now ?
> 

Yes ... I can back it out if needed.  One thing I need to double check is
what this does when you run with a security manager -- we might need to
tweak how the default policy file works too.

> Remy
> 
> 

Craig


Reply via email to