But it's also possible to have new httpservice under "http" directory (with version 2.0.0) and keep the old one for now under "http.jetty" directory.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Richard S. Hall <[email protected]>wrote: > On 9/10/09 15:33, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Richard S. Hall<[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 9/10/09 15:24, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Yes, that would be the best thing for trunk. So, I propose we delete >>>> http.jetty folder and import the new under http folder. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> If it is still using Jetty, then why are we not just keeping the >>> http.jetty >>> module? >>> >>> >>> >> The new httpservice implementation has more than one module. It's >> structured >> in a way that you can have multiple implementation using the same "core" >> functionality. Jetty module is only starting the jetty engine and >> registering a dispatcherservlet to jetty. All code that is handling the >> startup and property settings is essentialy the same in both old and new, >> but it differs on the actual "dispatching" of requests. >> >> So we can either have a nested module structure like this (what is in the >> new code): >> >> * http >> * http/api >> * http/jetty >> * http/bridge >> ... etc ... >> >> > > Ok, makes sense. I prefer the nested module structure... > > -> richard > > > Or a flatten structure like this: >> >> * http.api >> * http.jetty >> * http.bridge >> ... etc ... >> >> Nested module structure is by far the easiest when it comes to compling >> only >> the httpservice implementation which now is composted of multiple modules. >> >> /srs >> >> >> >> >>> -> richard >>> >>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
