Refering to a
servlet by its class name is not the preferred way to access a servlet. By default, many servlet containers don't support this behaviour.
Some of the problems with using this servlet is that
all servlets are available if you use this. It means you have to delete a servlet to 'disable' it. People may be able to access servlets you don't intend just by knowing its name.it only allows a one to one mapping between URLs and servlet classes. If you had a servlet that did the same thing but behaved slightly differently depending on the mapping location, this wouldn't be possible using the classname.there are other parts of the Servlet API that use the mapped name of the srevlet. I have no idea whether they work correctly, but you wouldn't know until you tried, and it would be unfortunate if you found a feature didn't work until it was too late to back out. These are just some differences off the top of my head, but there may also be an official explaination. I belive that some containers don't support referring to servlets by class name at all.
Dave