On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 7:48 AM, Michael Sparer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > I looked a bit more into the code and came to the conclusion that having to > depend on the order the servlets and services are loaded is kind of a Bad > Thing (tm). A user shouldn't have to care about such things. I had a look > at > the CometdService and I think one could circumvent the problem if we use > the > CometdService as a facade to the BayeuxService (rather than a subclass). > This way we could initialise the BayeuxService lazily (which will be on > first subscription to a channel) and wouln't have to depend on servlet > orders or the time the ServletContext gets initialised. And as the only two > methods used from the Bayeuxservice are getClient() and getBayeux() it > wouldn't be too difficult. What do you, wicketstuff-push-commiters, or > Rodolfo, think about that? Wouldn't be work at all for you as I have commit > access - but I rather ask you first as you did the upgrade to 1.3.4 ;-) Yes, that is the better option. I'm still in a bit in a hurry to get the RemoveListener functionality for another project I was working on. > > > regards, > Michael > > Michael Sparer wrote: > > > >> 2. The CometD servlet now has to be loaded before the CometDService can > >> be > >> instanciated. > >> So you would have to initialize it on demand in your application. > > > > I ran into that this morning. Can't this be avoided? I didn't look into > > the code thoroughly yet, but I saw that CometdService is now extending > > jetty's Bayeux Service which needs the Bayeux in the constructor. Having > > the ServletContext initialised at the time my Beans are instantiated is > > kinda tricky for me, as I can't initialise the services lazily as there > is > > a whole lot of cross-dependencies. > > I could do it the hard way and remove the service from my springcontext, > > let it be instantiated by the application and add the application as > > reference-bean to the services that formerly needed the ChannelService - > > but this sounds like a workaround, doesn't it? > > When jetty implemented their new BayeuxService they must have thought > > about such a problem, haven't they? > > How did you go about this? > > > > regards, > > Michael > > > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Michael Sparer > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > >> > >> As the recent change from wicketstuff-push 1.3.0-SNAPSHOT to 1.3.4 > >> involved > >> major changes (see > >> http://www.nabble.com/wicketstuff-push-update-to18765345.html) as far > as > >> dependencies are concerned (new version of jetty-cometd with major API > >> changes), I'd suggest a 1.3.0 branch. > >> I do have commit rights but don't have permission to do the branch. So > >> please either branch wicketstuff-push from version 3267 or give me > >> permission to do so (my username is msparer). > >> > >> thanks in advance > >> > >> regards, > >> Michael > >> > >> ----- > >> Michael Sparer > >> http://talk-on-tech.blogspot.com > >> -- > >> View this message in context: > >> > http://www.nabble.com/Permission-for-branching-wicketstuff-push-tp19002588p19002588.html > >> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > ----- > Michael Sparer > http://talk-on-tech.blogspot.com > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Permission-for-branching-wicketstuff-push-tp19002588p19029986.html > Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
