Hello It's an information e-mail about the review I'm doing for Pax Web 8 (current master branch). The goal is to have working OSGi CMPN R7 implementation of: - Http Service specification, chapter 102 (no changes after R6) - Http Whiteboard specification, chapter 140 (changed after R6)
What I found is that Pax Web is not handling _contexts_ properly. It uses confusing approach to "shared" context (with potential security vulnerability), duplicates some interfaces, mixes Http Service and Whiteboard APIs, doesn't handle properly properties like: osgi.http.whiteboard.context.select = (osgi.http.whiteboard.context.name =my-context) or (allowed by specification): osgi.http.whiteboard.context.select = (osgi.http.whiteboard.context.name=*) or even (defined by specification): osgi.http.whiteboard.context.select = (&(osgi.http.whiteboard.context.name =*)(any.other=value1)) for whiteboard registration. I'm not going to throw away any legacy code and even I don't want to touch (much) existing interfaces (though they're almost begging to do it ;)). I'm working in similar way to what I did with Pax Logging - review everything, provide integration tests showing specification compliance and consult with you - the community. JBO - we can always share the working branches. My current work for now mainly consists of: - providing javadocs - collecting strange and illegal scenarios allowed for now by Pax Web - collecting scenarios which should work, but don't work regards Grzegorz Grzybek -- -- ------------------ OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - [email protected] --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OPS4J" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CAAdXmhrGmCL5KkYDC4o%3Dynrw-MpjWydRETQbiDQWLqk9am%2B7sw%40mail.gmail.com.
