Not a bad idea. I'm wondering how we could name it so as not to confuse people about the servlet extension vs. the servlet wrapper. I had thought of putting it the servlet extension because that is the only piece of Restlet that already depends on the servlet API, but that might cause some unintended drama with service discovery, as you point out! Definitely this calls for Jerome's wisdom.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Bruno Harbulot < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Very good points. Just a small comment: isn't the Servlet extension what > allows Restlets to be "wrapped" into a Servlet environment (I don't actually > use it)? I think perhaps this utility should be in a separate extension, > since it would make it possible to use Servlet-based code from Restlet, but > might not require Restlet to use the Servlet connector. >
