109240 – servlet cannot be found by tomcat 5.5.9 .deployables is missing

Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 109240 - servlet cannot be found by tomcat 5.5.9 .deployables is missing

Summary: servlet cannot be found by tomcat 5.5.9 .deployables is missing

Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 97756

Alias:	None

Product:	WTP Java EE Tools
Classification:	WebTools
Component:	jst.servlet (show other bugs)
Version:	0.7
Hardware:	PC Windows XP

Importance:	P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone:	---
Assignee:	jst.servlet
QA Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends on:
Blocks:

Reported:	2005-09-10 13:03 EDT by robert daniel
Modified:	2006-09-25 03:03 EDT (History)
CC List:	0 users

See Also:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Description robert daniel

2005-09-10 13:03:22 EDT

error message "[Modules] The Web module at the following location cannot be 
found : c:\eclipse 3.1 workspace\testTomcat\.deployables\testTomcat.

after having created a servlet, following the tutorial at 
http://www.eclipse.org/webtools/jst/components/j2ee/scenarios/ServletScenario.h
tml, 

the dynamic web project testTomcat is build,

the servlet needs to be corrected :
- <import java.io.PrintWriter;> is missing 
- doDelete has arg instead of response
...

after that the compile is OK but the servlet cannot be ran on the server,
there is not .deployables.

eclipse 3.1 build i20050627-1435
tomcat 5.5.9

Comment 1 Chuck Bridgham

2005-09-12 15:19:28 EDT

The servlet tutorial and generation has been fixed up in WTP 1.0.  The
.deployables refresh problem will be solved as a part of the solution for its
removal according to defect 97756

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 97756 ***

Comment 2 David Williams

2006-09-25 03:03:42 EDT

This bug was moved to 'closed' state, since it is so old is is assumed its dup, invalid, or worksforme resolution is no longer in qustion and the bugzilla needs no further attention. Feel free to re-open, or open a new bug, if this semi-automatic processing was done in error in this case.