Timothy Bennett wrote:
"Leo Simons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(moving this over to dev@, please direct all further comments there)
Also, I'm wondering what Greg and other Jetty+Geronimo peeps have to say about it; I've heard rumours of Jetty moving to the asf (to perhaps be a geronimo subproject, or top-level), in that case it makes sense IMO to keep JettyPhoenix with Jetty.
Howard and I have also discussed keeping the with Jetty (or at least co-hosted). I believe Howard offered to speak with Greg about getting me committer rights to JettyPhoenix on the Jetty CVS server. In light of the issues you've raised, then maybe keeping it at Jetty is the best solution.
I've got no problem going through incubation -- doing whatever is necessary and required. I've also got no problem keeping it with Jetty. I'd just like to see the component gain more visibility in the Avalon community, and it have the opportunity to grow and mature. However that is accomplished is obviously left to others to decide.
IMO the actual sources are not the important thing here (keep in mind that the core of all of this is around 3 source files). What is much more valuable is Timmothy's experience in bringing this work up-to-date. Beyond that, there a lot of really things we could be doing to make an embedded web component really smart by leveraging the meta-model. This opens up a host of potential benefits.
Howard Henson prooved that Jetty/Avalon intergration was feasible. Timmothy
has validated this against Merlin. Basically the current system demonstrates the setup of Jetty are related context objects so that a logger and service manager can be supplied to servlets. However, logger+serviceManager is only a subset of the component contact. What I would like to see is resolution of a complete component-level support which means some rethinking of things in terms responsibilities between container and component.
Doing this here in Avalon is IMO much more productive. I also suspect that
at the end of the day this would be a driver for resolution of kernel based
extension (i.e. think about extending the container to be a web-server that happens to handle non-web components).
Timothy - what's your opinion?
Stephen.
Timothy
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
