> From: [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:33:34 +0100
> Subject: Re: Does Failsafe Require Jetty?
> To: [email protected]
> 
> Failsafe does not require jetty. If your integration tests require that
> your application be deployed to a servlet container - such as jetty - and
> you do not want to have your tests manage the lifecycle of that container,
> then you will require failsafe so that you can have maven manage starting
> up and tearing down the container (and any additional required resources)
> around the test execution.
MG>yes my preference would be to manage the container lifeycle outside of 
failsafe
MG>i found *some* maven-jetty-plugin doc on 
sonatypeMG>http://books.sonatype.com/mvnex-book/reference/web-sect-configuring-jetty.htmlMG>archetype
 creation for maven-jetty-plugin to create index.jsp and web.xml is sparse..can 
you suggest better site?MG>Thanks
> 
> On 15 August 2016 at 14:35, Richard W. Adams <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > I've been taking a first look at documentation for the Failsafe plugin. It
> > looked straightforward until I got to the part that discussed Jetty.  I
> > found the Jetty section confusing, as it seems to imply that Jetty is
> > required to Failsafe. I hope I'm misunderstanding it, and that Failsafe
> > can be run *without* Jetty.
> >
> > Another point where I found the documentation somewhat lacking:  Under
> > what scenarios would I WANT to run Jetty & Failsafe together? Is this only
> > for server applications, or is there some other use case I'm overlooking?
> >
> >
> > **
> >
> > This email and any attachments may contain information that is
> > confidential and/or privileged for the sole use of the intended recipient.
> > Any use, review, disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance by others,
> > and any forwarding of this email or its contents, without the express
> > permission of the sender is strictly prohibited by law.  If you are not the
> > intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately, delete the
> > e-mail and destroy all copies.
> > **
> >
                                          

Reply via email to