Hello,

I ran into this issue as well - I was getting a security exception "*signer
information does not match signer information of other classes in the same
package*". I excluded one of the dependencies and was able to resolve this.
Thankfully it was only one other jar that was in conflict.

Thanks
Vinay

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Jesse McConnell
<[email protected]>wrote:

> eclipse policy requires with distribute with _their_ signed and packed
> jar file which is the fundamental issue
>
> it is basically they same as the normal servlet-api just with signed
> goop and a manifest modified for OSGI purposes..
>
> you can just as easily use jetty but excluding the orbit coordinates
> in the dependencies and use the normal javax.servlet one in maven
> central as well
>
> jesse
>
> --
> jesse mcconnell
> [email protected]
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Juan Antonio Farré Basurte
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi, Jesse,
> >
> > Thanks for your quick response.
> >
> > I read the comment (in fact the full bug), but didn't understand much (I
> probably know too little about maven), though I got the idea that jetty
> jars were being built against  jetty own servlet-api jar and then
> publishing them in maven repositories with dependency on javax jars, which
> is kinda an inconsistency.
> > Did I get it right?
> >
> > Ok, but I've done the exercise to get both
> javax.servlet-3.0.0.v201112011016.jar and javax.servlet-api-3.0.1.jar, list
> their contents, sort them and diff them.
> > The result is that the only apparently significative difference is jetty
> jar including a javax/servlet/resources directory that contains only dtd's
> and xsd's.
> > Is it really worth maintaining two separate jars? Wouldn't it be best to
> just use javax jar and get dtd's and xsd's from other place (may be from
> the original URI's)?
> >
> > May be I'm wrong and these api jars aren't only the api interface but
> also the implementations and that's where the difference resides?
> > If javax jar does include a different implementation than jetty's, I'd
> understand what's going on.
> > If javax jar includes no implementation and jetty's does, then jetty
> implementation could reside in a separate jar and the interfaces stay in
> javax jar.
> >
> > My concern about this is that I'm having a nightmare of jars downloaded
> by ivy that are or include servlet-api.
> > In one case, something transitively includes the whole javaee jar, but
> not the javax one, but org.apache.openejb one :S
> > In other cases, for example grizzly-servlet-webserver v1.9.18-i, it just
> includes the api together with many other things.
> >
> > I'm really going crazy, I'd like to have just one shared jar for all
> project, but I really don't know which one to keep and which one to remove,
> or whether to synchronize all their versions and let every project take
> what it needs from the jar where it finds it.
> >
> > May be you (or other person) can clarify all this a bit and I'd be
> really thankful.
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > Juan
> >
> > El 18/06/2012, a las 12:54, Jesse McConnell escribió:
> >
> >> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=371954#c1
> >>
> >> we are looking into better ways around this but this is just the way
> >> it is for the time being....it stinks but it is a better situation
> >> then we were previously
> >>
> >> cheers!
> >> jesse
> >>
> >> --
> >> jesse mcconnell
> >> [email protected]
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:47 AM, Juan Antonio Farré Basurte
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Sorry if this has been answered before but I'm not being able to
> access the archives in the web site.
> >>>
> >>> I've been having problems with a maven dependency on
> org.eclipse.jetty.orbit artifact servlet-api.
> >>>
> >>> Looks like I found a workaround, but I still wonder why jetty is using
> this servlet-api instead of some version 3 javax.servlet servlet-api.
> >>> Does jetty version include additional content to the standard api?
> >>> Is jetty servet-api fully compatible with javax.servlet one?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks a lot,
> >>>
> >>> Juan
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> jetty-users mailing list
> >>> [email protected]
> >>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-users
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> jetty-users mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-users
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > jetty-users mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-users
> _______________________________________________
> jetty-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-users
>
_______________________________________________
jetty-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jetty-users

Reply via email to