Niklas Gustavsson wrote: > Disclaimer, I'm still way behind on all fronts due to my trip to Korea > being somewhat extended due to that ash cloud. But, I'm now home and > trying to catch up :-) > > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Bernd Fondermann > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I didn't check with AsyncWeb, but I guess the patch copies its source >> code over to Vysper? I don't see a point in doing so. Why not create a >> dependency on the AsyncWeb library? > > I also have not yet reviewed the patch, but +1 to depending on the > binary rather than pulling in source code. > >> Say you have a webserver already running on your vysper.org machine. >> Then you'd probably want that process to handle the HTTP-side of BOSH, >> too. So we need two basic modes of operation - in-process and separate >> processes. > > When you say webserver, would that be a servlet container or something else?
Servlet container. > To me (given finite resources), I think in-process (that is, in > Vyspers process) is the most interesting option for us right now. This > is where a Vysper implementation of BOSH can add some value. Vysper is designed to be embedded easily, for example in a DI-container environment or a Tomcat, a Jetty etc. You could say this is still in-process, and it is, but the container might already have bound HTTP ports. > For the > separate process, there are already generic BOSH gateways out there. Which? JabberHTTPBind isn't. I didn't look into http://kenai.com/projects/jbosh/pages/Home but it seems it isn't, too. But what I really like to see is a solution which is capable of blending into a servlet engine, e.g. does not re-implement HTTP, but rather is a Servlet. I'm ok with separating processes later, but designing with that in mind. >> I'd like us to evaluate Jetty, too. It's properly maintained and it >> implements the most recent standards in async web processing. WDYT? > > Agreed, however for this project I think we should choose one primary > target. +1. > If Jetty fits the reqs, then that's a fine option to me. Also, > Jetty supports WebSockets already, which would be interesting if we > choose to go that path later on. +1. Bernd
