Kind words :-) I know sling would benefit from this implementation. Working on a OSGi project too that is in need for such a service. One http bundle that fit's every deployment method makes the distribution a little easier :-)
BR, Sten Roger On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry for the delay ... > > I have looked at it and I am kind of impressed. This looks exactly like > something which has been turning in my head for some months now, too... > > Good stuff and -- as Marcel said -- clearly structured. I would > definitely welcome this as a contribution to Apache Felix > > .. and I could even imagine, that in Apache Sling we would strongly > consider migrating to this, too (as you hinted in the issue ;-) ). > > Regards > Felix > > Sten Roger Sandvik schrieb: > > Now I'm back from vacation and has brushed up the code. I have submitted > a > > Jira task with the details (FELIX-1456). Since I really hate Jira as a > patch > > repository and I do not have commit rights I have uploaded the source and > > binaries at a google hosted repository. It's two examples inside to show > how > > to use the bridged implementation. Tell me what you think :-) > > > > BR, > > Sten Roger > > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Sten Roger Sandvik <s...@x3m.com> wrote: > > > >> Great. I am on a vacation right now, but when I'm back I will make > >> available the code and binaries so that others can play with it. > >> > >> // srs > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org > >wrote: > >> > >>> On 7/28/09 2:44 AM, Rob Walker wrote: > >>> > >>>> We're a big user of the current felix Jetty http. > >>>> > >>>> Would definitely welcome any improvement/enhancement - personally I'd > >>>> like to see it as a parallel implementation initially, so we can look > at > >>>> both side by side. And then later, if/when everyone is happy and has > moved > >>>> across then we could look to deprecate the existing one. > >>>> > >>>> My motives are purely selfish here - we have a lot of live users on > the > >>>> current implementation, and have had a couple of issues in the past > where > >>>> changes broke these implementations. So it'd be good to be able to > stage any > >>>> migration. > >>>> > >>> Even if we replace the existing impl, the old binary and source > releases > >>> do not go away, so no one would be forced to upgrade before they were > >>> ready...of course, if there is some irreconcilable incompatibility > between > >>> the two then we'd have an issue, but I doubt that would be the case > since > >>> they are supposed to be implementing the same spec. > >>> > >>> Well, it sounds like there is sufficient interest, so it would be great > if > >>> Sten could make it available for people to play with via JIRA. > >>> > >>> What do you think, Sten? > >>> > >>> -> richard > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On the plus note - although our usage is quite basic, we do stick > >>>> strictly to what OSGi exposes as the HttpService API layer and use no > other > >>>> features. So we make quite a good test site to ensure the fundamentals > of > >>>> the base API are working as per the spec. > >>>> > >>>> Regards > >>>> > >>>> -- Rob > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > >
