-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ellecer,
On 10/27/2011 7:11 PM, Ellecer Valencia wrote: > On Thursday, October 27, 2011, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> > wrote: >> A better way to handle the rollback scenario is to deploy a copy >> of ROOT##001.war as ROOT#003.war. > > That's the first option we saw, but just wanted to confirm that > there wasn't another rollback feature similar to parallel > deployment. I guess in a rollback scenario it's probably more > prudent to just end those sessions since the app is broken anyway. > The idea of "parallel rollback" hurts my head just imagining how it > would be implemented! =) I might be worried that ROOT##001 had been marked for eventual-undeployment and you might find yourself in a situation where your "rollback" essentially causes an outage. Mark, can you confirm the behavior in this situation? The (brief) documentation says that the "latest version" will be used if a session does not yet exist. Is the "latest version" defined as the highest version number yet deployed (in which case the above scenario will occur) or is it defined as the highest version number currently deployed? - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk6rFkEACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PBR9ACghJGnUy7tSYzmo7MJNA73eWsZ GYAAnR/7fvwFtzeFRcnhhouAW88VOrBX =zn6f -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
