On Jan 16, 2008 3:06 PM, Rob Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ... > That's one reason I've always been reluctant to see the Felix Http Service > "adorned" or extended with features beyond the standard. I can see how > beneficial such extensions are, but they then mean bundles and > applications using the extended services couldn't easily swap to an > alternate "standard" Http Service. It's a challenge to "lock-down" Jetty > so we get the best of it's optimised Http handling without some of the > features that aren't part of the OSGi spec, but I believe it's a > worthwhile one.
I guess that people that want to swap Http Service implementations they will stick to Http Service API so basically they should get the same expected behavior on using any of the implementations. Extensions can be added as like there was another service that they can use. and when a developer commits to just a fact I'm pretty sure that they need the extended features and they are not expecting to find the Extended service. The approach on Pax Web is to publish another service named WebContainer. Once you get hold of that service you can then (and only then) use the http service extensions. We do not have our own version of HttpService and by using the plain HttpService you get exactly what you would expect to get by reading the specs. So this, I would say, is the best of both worlds. Alin
