Hi, Sten Roger Sandvik schrieb: > 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 :-)
I think so, too. Regards Felix > > >> -> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >
