Hi, I would like to take this thread as basis for discussion of what should be included into a 1.0.0 of Pax Web.
I do see there are some issues which should be taken into account or should be talked of. [1] - War extender default context should be named "default" [2] - Resources are sent without Last-Modified and no check is done for If-Modified-Since I think these two issues have basically the same source, the default Servlet, and while thinking about this, wouldn't it be the best just to use the DefaultServlet of the JettyServer since the JettyServer is the only WebServer running with Pax Web right now. Or at least we should think of a mechanism on how to address the DefaultServlet. [3] - enable configuration of jetty Handlers in jetty.xml I think this one should be fixed, since we are capable to use the jetty.xml for configuration. [4] - Use the extender pattern to discover TLDs in any started bundle [8] -Add support for searching TLDs also in the imported packages Would greatly increase the productivity of pax-web and how it is accepted from other developers. [5] -Welcome files do not follow servlet specs We should make sure that we do follow the specs. [6] - Registering a servlet at "/" causes incorrect setting of servlet path and path info on request My wild guess on this, it probably correlates with issues [1] and [2]. [7] - JasperClassLoader causes JSF FactoryFinder to fail during request dispatch We should be able to support JSF. (if this is an issue with JSF) Achim [1] http://issues.ops4j.org/browse/PAXWEB-209 [2] http://issues.ops4j.org/browse/PAXWEB-174 [3] http://issues.ops4j.org/browse/PAXWEB-204 [4] http://issues.ops4j.org/browse/PAXWEB-130 [5] http://issues.ops4j.org/browse/PAXWEB-123 [6] http://issues.ops4j.org/browse/PAXWEB-108 [7] http://issues.ops4j.org/browse/PAXWEB-98 [8] http://issues.ops4j.org/browse/PAXWEB-86 > So i've had a closer look at the specs and we are missing a few > things, mostly publishing event admin events, registering the servlet > context as a service and the support for web apps using the same > webapp-context path. > I'll raise issues for those. > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 09:16, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi David. I'll update the public wiki asap. >> I think maybe we could spend some time on making sure it passes the >> TCK for both the http service spec and the web app spec and then bump >> to 1.0.0 so that we can make an official annoucement. >> Do you know if the TCK freely available for any one ? Or do I have >> (being in the OSGi alliance) to do that privately ? >> I'm not sure how the certification process actually work ... >> >> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 13:05, David Bosschaert >> <david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I noticed that on the Pax Web public page [1] it says that it's an >>> implementation of RFC 66. This RFC has now been turned into a spec in >>> the OSGi Enterprise Release [2] chapter 128. >>> >>> So it would be good to update the statement on the public page to say >>> that it implements the OSGi Web Applications Specification instead of >>> RFC 66. Well, if it does, obviously. Are you guys compliant yet? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> David >>> >>> [1] http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web >>> [2] http://www.osgi.org/Download/Release4V42 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> general mailing list >>> general@lists.ops4j.org >>> http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general >>> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> Guillaume Nodet >> ------------------------ >> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >> ------------------------ >> Open Source SOA >> http://fusesource.com >> > > _______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.ops4j.org http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
