Hi, Richard S. Hall schrieb: > 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...
That's also the intention of my initial proposal (not laying out clearly that the import is actually composed of multiple modules, sorry 'bout that). Regards Felix > > -> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
