On 9/10/09 15:54, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote:
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.
Well, we certainly don't have to delete it immediately, but stop
developing it. Once we feel confident it is a sound replacement, then we
can delete the old one.
-> richard
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
