Disclaimer, I'm still way behind on all fronts due to my trip to Korea being somewhat extended due to that ash cloud. But, I'm now home and trying to catch up :-)
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Bernd Fondermann <[email protected]> wrote: > I didn't check with AsyncWeb, but I guess the patch copies its source > code over to Vysper? I don't see a point in doing so. Why not create a > dependency on the AsyncWeb library? I also have not yet reviewed the patch, but +1 to depending on the binary rather than pulling in source code. > Say you have a webserver already running on your vysper.org machine. > Then you'd probably want that process to handle the HTTP-side of BOSH, > too. So we need two basic modes of operation - in-process and separate > processes. When you say webserver, would that be a servlet container or something else? To me (given finite resources), I think in-process (that is, in Vyspers process) is the most interesting option for us right now. This is where a Vysper implementation of BOSH can add some value. For the separate process, there are already generic BOSH gateways out there. > I'd like us to evaluate Jetty, too. It's properly maintained and it > implements the most recent standards in async web processing. WDYT? Agreed, however for this project I think we should choose one primary target. If Jetty fits the reqs, then that's a fine option to me. Also, Jetty supports WebSockets already, which would be interesting if we choose to go that path later on. /niklas
