On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Bernd Fondermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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:
<snip> > > > 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. not sure whether jetty is TCK'd > > > 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 ;-) :-) i suggest just continuing with jetty for now: we can tell tomcat users to edit the manifest themselves - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
