On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Alin Dreghiciu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 1. Create a copy of current pax web and change bundling process to not > > embed jetty + add imports for jetty packages. This should solve Bret's > > issue. > > This shouldn't be neccessary. Or are we saying that we want to claim > to be the official maintainer of the Jetty Bundle?
I do not get exactly your point but what I want to say here is that pax web bundle (the one that does not embed jetty bundles) should have imports for jetty packages. Otherwise how it can work? > > > > 2. Pax Web will be build as a uber bundle containing artifact > > mentioned above + necessary jetty artifacts + right import/export. > > This will result in almost the same as the current bundle (+ > > imports/exports fro jetty). > > So, if a new Jetty is released (and available in bundle form), deploy > that bundle, stop Pax Web, refresh the bundles, start Pax Web, and it > should be wired to the more recent version. The second bundle is just another bundle that embeds pax web from above and jetty bundles for easy deployment (you will then deploy 1 bundle instead of 4). Having this two type of bundles will allow both scenarios isn't it? Alin _______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.ops4j.org http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
