Remy Maucherat wrote: > > Well, it's not that I want to advocate the "competition", but it seems to me > that Tomcat 3 is more useful for a "MiniTomcat", mainly because it requires > only JDK 1.1 (smaller JDK; J2ME is based on JDK 1.1, so maybe it could end > up being a "target"; that was one of Costin's pet projects, actually). >
For my purposes, it's ok to assume 1.2, so that's not an issue. If Tomcat 4 isn't meant to be used like I'm using it, then I don't really understand the point of the generic interfaces in o.a.catalina. If StandardContext is the only possible Context implementation, what's the justification for a generic Context interface? The current architecture requires an awful lot of casts, and if the only configuration allowed is: StandardEngine/StandardHost/StandardContext/StandardWrapper then most of them are unnessary. What's the point of going through hoops with the generic interfaces if you know the exact types in advance? I understand that project goals can change, but the design of the apis (not to mention the javadocs) do seem to strongly imply that something like MinimalTomcat should be legit. -- Christopher St. John [EMAIL PROTECTED] DistribuTopia http://www.distributopia.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
