+1 On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Alin Dreghiciu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 >
-- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.ops4j.org http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
