vlad wrote: > On 5/25/07, *Mondain* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > wrote: > > I for one would prefer that our implementation not require a > specific container (tomcat or jetty). This would allow the WAR > version to work without any special "hacks". > > Paul > > > IMHO, Red5 doesn't belong to a container at all - having a web app > that listens itself on several ports and doesn't use at all the > container's URLs (but for examples browsing) is not "natural". > > The only case is if you could use a Servlet for RTMPT/S, but that can > not be achieved along with other web applications running: Red5 must > 'own' the root path, or at least some (/open, /idle etc.) sub-paths of > the container. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, > Vlad You are not wrong but, being in a container has a lot of advantages, many of which I must admit I don't really know and I just assume exist. But I can say that one big advantage is most of us are developing web applications that use red5 for one thing or another. It removes some of the security headache if the media server and the application are served from the same host and in some cases on the same port. It is also much easier for some of us to configure a war that to have to setup a whole separate server.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Red5 mailing list > [email protected] > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org > _______________________________________________ Red5 mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
