On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Bernd Fondermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > There are three spice libs we are using which cause problems: > > > > spice-configkit-1.1.2.jar > > spice-loggerstore-0.5.jar > > spice-classman-1.0.jar > > > > They all have Extension-List values which do not conform to the > Manifest.MF > > spec [1]. They separate entries with colons instead of spaces. > > This causes Tomcat to throw exceptions [2]. Jetty is fine. > > > > Possible solutions: > > > > 1. > > > > There are newer versions of the lib available at spice.codehaus.org with > > corrected manifests. > > But those are incompatible in terms of package names, which have been > > changed from their original home (realityforge.org) to their new home's. > > > > So using them is not an option I guess, since they are used by Phoenix > > directly. > > could use bytecode, i suppose > > > > 2. We could not support Tomcat with our WAR deployment, which is poor (or > > good, depending on your attitude towards embedding James within Servlet > > Containers :-) ). > > prefer to support tomcat > > > > 3. We could approach the Tomcat people to make it behave more gracefully. > > think it's a spec compliance thing
yeah, but maybe could be ignored (as does Jetty). since they removed the related entries from the libs, cannot be that important. > > 4. We could change the JAR's Manifests. > > seems the most expedient solution. would probably cause headaches for > maven users. oops. didn't think of that. :-/ > 5. do we really need them at all ;-) ? > > i'd much prefer to support servlet containers by using generic > servlets for the transport (rather than the avalon-based JAMES > handler). this would probably mean that the war deployment would be > spring only. but this means a completely different, much more complex spring-deployment than what we currently have. > IMO people using a servlet container are willing to compromise a > little on specification compliance for interoperability. using a > servlet for the socket layer is not gaurateed to be as compliant as > the well tested JAMES transport layer but IMHO this is a price which > many people would think worth paying. would also need them paying me the man-month doing it ;-) Bernd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
