Yes, that would be the best thing for trunk. So, I propose we delete http.jetty folder and import the new under http folder.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Richard S. Hall <[email protected]>wrote: > In that case we can just replace the current impl (keeping the name), but > call it version 2.0.0, no? > > -> richard > > > On 9/10/09 15:19, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote: > >> To be cear: new http.jetty service should be a 100% dropin replacement for >> the old http.jetty service. I think it's pretty close right now since the >> actual implementation of new http.jetty bundle is almost the same code as >> the old one. >> >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Sten Roger Sandvik<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> The current http.jetty implementation is almost identical to the new >>> http/jetty implementation. So in my opinion it's not neccesarry to keep >>> implementing on the old one, unless it's some really good points in doing >>> so. So the folder could then be http (just use another version than >>> http.jetty). >>> >>> Regards, >>> Sten Roger >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Felix Meschberger<[email protected] >>> >wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> The IP Clearance vote period will soon end and we will be able to import >>>> the HttpService contribution by Sten Roger Sandvik [1]. >>>> >>>> Looking at the current folders in the Felix trunk, I consider importing >>>> the modules into a httpservice folder (we already have a http.jetty >>>> project, which is the Jetty Embedding HttpService implementation). >>>> >>>> WDYT ? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Felix >>>> >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-1456 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
