On 28/10/2011 21:53, Christopher Schultz wrote: > 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?
And the code says...? Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
