> Stefano Bagnara wrote: > > > I know in past there was an Avalon<->Jetty adapter.
I understood that Avalon was in the process of being replaced by Spring as the Container. So ideally new developments could start this process of detachment by not using Avalon to run. > > > Jetty is a slim servlet container. Probably the licensing > > doesn't allow to redistribute it with james. Tomcat-embedded is a minimal footprint distribution of Tomcat for uses such as the one proposed here. I hear Jetty is very good also however. > > Jetty (http://jetty.mortbay.org/jetty/) is under the Apache License. > > However, I don't believe that we want to embed a web container with JAMES. > Rather, I feel that we want to enhance our primitive JMX support, and have > administration tools use that interface. I understand the issues for not wanting to embed the servlet container, it adds a dependency, it increases the size of the download etc. I was hoping however that making this a 'no configuration/ no installation' turnkey solution would greatly increase the adoption rate of James. One of the biggest complaints against Java systems as of today is the huge complexity involved in deployment of new systems. Picture this: Scenario 1 1- Download, extract and run James Scenario 2 1- Download, extract and run James 2- Download Tomcat 3- Install Tomcat 4- Configure security and other on Tomcat 5- Download James admin console 6- Configure James console 7- Deploy James admin console It is definetly not a life or death choice, but I was hoping to make life easy for the end user. I also think we should try to do all in-house as opposed to having a separate sourceforge bundling project as proposed by Ann. -- Juan Carlos Murillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
