If does support means you can write websocket code, sure. If it means "works with cdi beans" then I think we miss this class: https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/master/tomee/tomee-catalina/src/main/java/org/apache/tomee/catalina/websocket/JavaEEDefaultServerEnpointConfigurator.java
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> Le mar. 30 juin 2020 à 09:29, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> a écrit : > our tomcat integration does support websockets afair. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > Am 30.06.2020 um 08:20 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com > >: > > > > @Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com> the first reason to keep > tomcat > > module is that we release it whereas o.a.tomcat:tomcat-owb does not exist > > for end users today ("you can build from source" is not an option IMHO > and > > justifies to fork in most cases). The main difference in terms of code is > > the fact tomcat integration provides a valve for the principal whereas we > > only use a filter but I guess it is enough since valve will prevent to > > position the filter - = capture of the principal - in the filter chain > and > > can therefore break apps even if it is tempting to make it always win (we > > shouldn't use a thread local but we don't have much options there). Both > > impl miss websocket integration - tomee has it - so it looks like > > tomcat-owb is a fork of our module today, not much so release point is a > > blocker for me. > > > > With jakarta I guess we can maybe ask tomcat+jetty to get an official > > servlet components injections and drop all specific code. > > > > Last point about the consistency for jetty AND tomcat is also key for me, > > there is no reason to favor jetty and not tomcat. > > > > +1 to drop the version from the module though, it does not make sense > > anymore - was for 6 -> 7 move IIRC. > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > < > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > > > > > > Le mar. 30 juin 2020 à 00:34, Gurkan Erdogdu <cgurkanerdo...@gmail.com> > a > > écrit : > > > >> Hi Remy > >> > >>> I would think you should keep "tomcat7" too, it's not really the same > >> idea > >>> as modules/owb. > >>> > >> I have looked at both implementations and both are the same purpose, > >> injection into Servlet related classes and get the current Principal > from > >> the request. In Tomcat/OWB module, its integration is more natural than > the > >> Tomcat7 module. > >> What is the benefit of using Tomcat7 in OWB? > >> Regards. > >> Gurkan > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 12:33 AM Rémy Maucherat <r...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 1:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> +1 to drop jms module, never saw any usage of it > >>>> -0.5 for tomcat7, rational being that if we want to do it, we should > >> (at > >>>> the same time) 1. ensure tomcat module is at least 1-1 (not the case I > >>>> think) + released properly and not just a sandbox and 2. drop jetty > >>>> integration too (which can be envisioned since we worked to integrate > >> OWB > >>>> in jetty itself) but dropping tomcat7 module without these two > >> conditions > >>>> looks like an user regression to me. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I would think you should keep "tomcat7" too, it's not really the same > >> idea > >>> as modules/owb. The main problem is using a version number in the > module > >>> name, that creates confusion in the long run and gives the impression > it > >> is > >>> outdated. Tomcat 7 will be eoled "soon", for example. > >>> > >>> Rémy > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I guess ee modules can move to tomee too - any other consumer - with > >> the > >>>> relevant adaptations to our codebase? > >>>> > >>>> Romain Manni-Bucau > >>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > >>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > >>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > >>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > >>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > >>>> < > >>>> > >>> > >> > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Le lun. 29 juin 2020 à 13:38, Gurkan Erdogdu < > cgurkanerdo...@gmail.com > >>> > >>> a > >>>> écrit : > >>>> > >>>>> Hi folks > >>>>> I would like to discuss to remove the following modules from the OWB > >>> code > >>>>> base. > >>>>> > >>>>> - webbeans-jms : We introduced this module years ago for JMS but > >>>> frankly > >>>>> never see any usage. Also, it was not completed. > >>>>> - webbeans-tomcat7 : We introduced this modules for Tomcat7 > >>>> integration > >>>>> but now it is useless and Tomcat already includes this integration > >>>> with > >>>>> more natural way ( > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/tomcat/tree/master/modules/owb) > >>>>> > >>>>> WDYT? Any objection? > >>>>> Regards. > >>>>> Gurkan > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Gurkan Erdogdu > >> http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com > >> > >
