Hi Sten, thanks for considering OPS4J being a receiver of this. It sounds like an alternative HTTP Implementation certainly would be of interest for PaxWeb. Are there any key features that you are targeting by this? Why did you do the work?
Anyway, I think it sounds really interesting, what are the others saying? And, separating the PaxWeb API from the Jetty impl sounds reasonable too, but I guess Alin has some more info on that ... /peter GTalk: neubauer.peter Skype peter.neubauer Phone +46 704 106975 LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/neubauer Twitter http://twitter.com/peterneubauer http://www.neo4j.org - New Energy for Data - The Graph Database. http://www.ops4j.org - New Energy for OSS Communities - Open Participation Software. http://www.oredev.org - Where Good Geeks Grok. Sent from Malmo, Skåne, Sweden On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Sten Roger Sandvik<s...@x3m.com> wrote: > Hi. > > I have worked on a HttpService implementation that supports both filters and > servlets. The service is implemented in a way that you can use it in both > exising wars (using a DispatcherFilter) and can also use stand-aolne > embedded Jetty. Instead of creating another project (hosted at google) I > would like to donate the code to pax if you are interested. I think it would > be a great addon. > > The only problem I see with pax web right now is that the pax-web-bundle > project contains both API and Jetty implementation. I think the API should > be added to a new bundle (pax-web-api) and the actual jetty service into > pax-web-jetty bundle. This means that the pax-web-extender-whiteboard is > only dependant on pax-web-api. > > What do you guys think? > > BR, > Sten Roger Sandvik > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > general@lists.ops4j.org > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > > _______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.ops4j.org http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
