Good point. Indeed, not too many kinds of servlet containers are needed.
I have implemented embedded Jetty9, Jetty10 and Jetty11 so far. I am currently working on embedded Jetty12 with EE10 and I would consider EE8, EE9 and future variants. We could choose to make any of these official somehow. On Thursday, 6 March 2025 at 19:18:36 UTC Jens wrote: +1 to adopting and maintaining official implementations (disclaimer: knowing that I won't maintain them myself, but) not having at least "some" official implementations would likely be a show stopper; maybe only have a couple official implementations though, with limited scope (like nowaday's JettyLauncher), and leave the others as "third parties"? (also makes it easier to "abandon" some when/if hardly anybody uses them and/or they become a burden to maintain; and provide more guarantees for the "official" ones?) I agree that an official implementation should not cover all kinds of servlet containers. The more are supported officially the less an argument can be made to not support additional servlet containers (Where to draw the line?). For every officially supported servlet container implementation someone needs to track the releases, etc. Personally I would only provide Jetty 12 as the single official implementation because it supports EE8, EE9 and EE10 via configuration. That keeps the maintenance burden low while covering EE8-10 and possibly future EE versions. It also matches what GWT offers out of the box today. -- J. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/53fac335-cd04-46d4-80ed-8d96dcb70b7fn%40googlegroups.com.
