Hi. Yes, I proposed this to both the Felix and Pax communities. I feel now that the initial implementation fits more into Felix than Pax. This is becaouse Pax Web has already an established "exension" API and my implementation is build from scratch. So it requires more work to fit this into Pax. But, I want to please both communities here :-) I have always tought of a full solution that supports servlets, filters, listeners, error handlers and jsp for stand alone (jetty) operation and a bridged operation. So, I will certainly try to adapt my implemetation to the Pax Web way of doing it.
I'm on my vacation right now, but when I come back I will first donate my code to the Felix community. Then, it would be nice to try to implement the same thing in Pax Web, but with more "advanced" features. /srs On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Alin Dreghiciu <adreghi...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi, > I see that you are not quite sure if you want to integrate your work with > Pax Web or as a replacement for Apache Felix HTTPService (you can do both > offcourse ;). > I had people before asking me about supporting the bridge in Pax Web, yet > no time for it. > So, definitely such an addition to Pax Web is of great interest. > Splitting, api / implementation is no brainer so we can go for it any > time so just let me know that you are commit on doing this. > More, then we can then enhance Pax Web Extender to work in a feature based > kind of aapproac as right now it support either full Pax Web WebContainer or > just the standard HttpService. This means that we will have to split > WebContainer in more interfaces (easy). > > So, I hope I see you around here when back from holiday. > Till then, have fun! > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Sten Roger Sandvik <s...@x3m.com> wrote: > >> Hi. >> >> I have worked on a HttpService implementation that supports both filters >> and servlets. The service is implemented in a way that you can use it in >> both exising wars (using a DispatcherFilter) and can also use stand-aolne >> embedded Jetty. Instead of creating another project (hosted at google) I >> would like to donate the code to pax if you are interested. I think it would >> be a great addon. >> >> The only problem I see with pax web right now is that the pax-web-bundle >> project contains both API and Jetty implementation. I think the API should >> be added to a new bundle (pax-web-api) and the actual jetty service into >> pax-web-jetty bundle. This means that the pax-web-extender-whiteboard is >> only dependant on pax-web-api. >> >> What do you guys think? >> >> BR, >> Sten Roger Sandvik >> >> _______________________________________________ >> general mailing list >> general@lists.ops4j.org >> http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general >> >> > > > -- > Alin Dreghiciu > Software Developer - Looking for new projects! > My profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/alindreghiciu > My blog: http://adreghiciu.blogspot.com > http://www.ops4j.org - New Energy for OSS Communities - Open Participation > Software. > http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java - Domain Driven Development. > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > general@lists.ops4j.org > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > >
_______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.ops4j.org http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
