Robert-The standalone version of Sling includes Pax Web which wraps Jetty. This is not a replacement for a j2ee server, but is a valid web container. Pax also provides a Web Extender which can deploy a slightly modified WAR file onto an OSGi-based web container. When used with Pax Web, Pax Web Extender supports the complete set of configuration from web.xml (see http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/ops4j/Pax+Web+Extender+-+War+-+Supported+Elements) as well as JSPs. When used with a standard HttpService (such as Equinox's or Felix's), it supports a very limited subset of web.xml (again, see that link).
If one was deploying ActiveMQ in a normal J2EE server, I tend to agree with you that getting the ActiveMQ console running inside Sling/Felix isn't necessary (or worth the trouble). Which is why I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that Carl was running the standalone version. Justin On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Robert Ritchy <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm just getting started with Sling/Felix; so I'm probably not in sync with > the overall strategy. But my planned approach is to deploy Sling as a > webapp in a normal j2ee server (or as a peer application). I don't see how > Sling can effectively replace a j2ee server. > > This is why I don't understand the benefit of getting the ActiveMQ web > console working in Sling. My ActiveMQ brokers/console would be deployed as > a peer and any ActiveMQ bundle would be related to message handling. Is it > for better access to the console? Or, that standalone is preferred? Just > curious if I'm off base with my thinking. > > -Robert > > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Carl F. Hall <[email protected]>wrote: > >> > AFAIK, Felix HttpService doesn't support legacy WAR >> > files. >> > This seems OK to me, but let me know if you forsee this as a problem >> > for >> > some reason. >> >> I may be in the minority here but I'm working diligently to get the >> ActiveMQ web console (j2ee webapp) to work in Sling. For me to continue >> using this console, I would need WAR support. >> > >
