OK, I thought there were changes to Jdk12Interceptor in 3.3 that needed to be ported back to 3.2.x. If all we need to do is document in server.xml than that's no problem at all. I'll take care of it.
Marc Saegesser > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 3:09 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Tomcat 3.2.4 release > > > On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Marc Saegesser wrote: > > > Regarging JAXP, if I understand correctly, I can build with and ship the > > jaxp.jar and crimson.jar from JAXP-1.1 but users can still run with the > > older jaxp.jar and parser.jar from jaxp-1.0.1, right? I have > two concerns. > > First I want to preserve the ability for existing users to > upgrade to 3.2.4 > > by simply copying the new webserver.jar file into tomcat/lib. Second, > > because of the class loader issues in 3.2.x, webapps see the > classes from > > tomcat/lib before they see the ones in their WEB-INF/lib > directory. Thus > > replacing the parser in tomcat/lib could have unintended side effects on > > existing applications. I don't have any problem shipping with the later > > JAXP stuff as long as we can still run with the older version that we've > > shipped with in the past. > > Both should work - you can compile with jaxp1.0 and ship with JAXP1.1, > it's the safest solution. Then it will work out-of-box as before, but will > be much easier for those who are used to replace the tomcat/lib parser ( > as this step will no longer be needed ). I think those assuming JAXP1.0 is > present in lib/ is smaller, and they can still use it in lib. > > > I'll take a look at the diffs between the Jdk12Interceptor in > tomcat_32 and > > 3.3 and how it looks. > > No, the Jdk12Interceptor _is_ included in 3.2, as > org.apache.tomcat.request.Jdk12Interceptor. The only problem is that it is > not even mentioned in server.xml, and an even bigger problem is that a lot > of people are having problems with SOAP, jndi, Jaxp - all of them require > a thread context class loader. > > We can only include it commented out, but I think having it in by default > is even better ( we are still compatible with JDK1.1 - but I think it's > better to ask 1.1 users to remove it instead of asking 1.2 users > to add it ). > > Costin
