On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Richard S. Hall <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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. > > Yes, totally agree :-) > > -> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
