> > IMO it would be better to integrate Jetty as binary, so that we don't > > have to keep the build systems in syncs in addition to the sources. > > This will make it much easier to update when Jetty updates too. > > This never works nicely as both JBoss and Jetty have frequent > releases. So you end up tracking JBoss X + Jetty Y + WebAppService Z, > so you have three version numbers to track.
We have to do the same thing for sources... only it is more like a 5 file binary update instead of a source merge/import instead of a ~20-50 source files or more. We work closely enough with you and the other Jetty folks that if we find a bug we get the fix put into the Jetty tree directly. If for some reason there was not enough time to rev Jetty before a JBoss release, then we can simply check out the Jetty sources, make the fix and use the resulting binaries for the release. > Plus there are branding and support issues - JBG wants to have > the whole J2EE source etc. Blah, blah, blah. I don't see any sense in this. As far as I can tell importing sources only creates more work for little benefit. > Finally I'll soon be doing a license change so that Jetty under > JBoss is LGPL as opposed to the artistic license that it is > currently under. Groovy. =] Any ways, I don't really expect my opinion to sway anyone to change; It never really does, unless I put up a hearty fight for it... And I don't plan on fighting for this, but I do hope that reason settles into the equation eventually. --jason ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Jabber Inc. Don't miss the IM event of the season | Special offer for OSDN members! JabConf 2002, Aug. 20-22, Keystone, CO http://www.jabberconf.com/osdn _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
