+1 well said.
On Oct 14, 6:03 pm, Jason Essington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since creating a usable server side configuration in the embedded
> servlet container is all but impossible for anything but the simplest
> projects, I think that the choice of embedded server is a non-issue.
>
> Since complicated configurations aren't really something you want to
> address in the embedded server, my vote would be for the simplest,
> fastest implementation that supports the simple case uses.
>
> So, if Jetty starts faster and is lighter weight, then great, use it.
>
> -jason
>
> On Oct 13, 2008, at 4:48 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi everyone,
>
> > Hope you're enjoying 1.5.
>
> > The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll
> > publish as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want
> > to work on for 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time
> > and a friendlier output directory structure (something that looks
> > more .war-like).
>
> > As part of this effort, we've all but decided to switch the hosted
> > mode embedded HTTP server from Tomcat to Jetty. Would this break
> > you? (And if so, how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We
> > figure most people who really care about the web.xml and so on are
> > already using "-noserver" to have full control over their server
> > config.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Bruce- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google Web Toolkit" group.
To post to this group, send email to Google-Web-Toolkit@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
