Interesting one.
Have to say, I hadn't envisaged this as a general or frequent case i.e.
we're creating a Jetty6 variant as a short term parallel case so brave
people can try the new version but also those who need stability keep
access to the old version.
It's also simple in that HTTP only has one principle JAR it depends on -
Jetty - so we only need 1 version number. Actually, I guess it could get
messy if multiple servlet JAR versions were possible - but I think for
now, http.jetty will imply a given servlet version, and http.jetty6 will
imply a (probably higher) servlet JAR version.
For short term pragmatism - I can live with http.jetty and http.jetty6 -
but if we want to come up with a more symmetric and re-usable naming
then maybe
http.jetty-v4-n
with of various possible alternatives:
http.jetty.v4.n
http.jetty_v4_n
and then of course the v6 one would just be an extension of this.
And darned - now I read your email back - I realise you were talking
about bundle symbolic names, not necessarily file or directory names ...
although I think this would effectively follow the same course ... this
is "http.jetty version M.n"
-- Rob
Jeff McAffer wrote:
As a point of interest, what are the bundle symbolic names for these two
Jetty bundles? I ask because we've been struggling with how to name
bundles that contain new versions of something like Jetty. That is,
should the bundles be
http.jetty version 4
http.jetty version 6
or
http.jetty version ???
http.jetty6 version ???
Similarly for things like a servlet API bundle.
We are pretty open. It would be interesting to see if we can align on
this naming.
Jeff
Rob Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
06/06/2006 07:59 AM
Please respond to
[email protected]
To
[email protected]
cc
Subject
Re: Poll - updating HTTP to newer jetty
Agreed.
I think we have that covered:
http.jetty - will remain as is for now
http.jetty6 - will be an SVN copy from http.jetty for versioning
purposes, over which the Jetty6 mods will be made
At some later stage we can decide if it makes sense to merge back down
to jetty service based on Jetty6.
-- Rob
Richard S. Hall wrote:
Should we be maintaining our current HTTP Service implementation with
Jetty4 compiled for JDK1.2 for those people in environments where
upgrading is not possible?
-> richard
Rob Walker wrote:
Does Jetty 6 required JDK 1.5?
Sorry for delay in replying - you got stuck in my spam filter.
No, I don't think so, I think it needs 1.4+, which should be fine.
I'm planning on making this jetty6 (or renaming old to jetty4) so we
don't lose current line anyhow.
Regards
-- Rob
Ascert - Taking systems to the Edge
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44 (0)20 7488 3470
www.ascert.com
--
Ascert - Taking systems to the Edge
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44 (0)20 7488 3470
www.ascert.com
