In the following servicemix.xml sample, the jetty-bean seems to be ignored completely, at least there is not logging that would show that it gets instantiated nor is the port 8080 available nor an error.
The <sm:serviceunit/> is currently obviously required including this dummy service, because otherwise servicemix fails with the message not endpoint defined. Is this behaviour absolutely necessary? --- <?xml version="1.0"?> <beans xmlns:sm="http://servicemix.apache.org/config/1.0"; xmlns:http="http://servicemix.apache.org/http/1.0"; xmlns:jetty="http://mortbay.com/schemas/jetty/1.0"; xmlns:bes="http://blue-elephant-systems.com/midas/servicemix/1.0";> <sm:serviceunit id="jbi"> <sm:activationSpecs> <sm:activationSpec service="bes:dummy" endpoint="dummy"> <sm:component> <bean class="org.apache.servicemix.components.util.EchoComponent"/> </sm:component> </sm:activationSpec> </sm:activationSpecs> </sm:serviceunit> <jetty:jetty> <jetty:connectors> <jetty:nioConnector port="8080" /> </jetty:connectors> <jetty:handlers> <jetty:webAppContext contextPath="/" resourceBase="/tmp/webapps" parentLoaderPriority="false" /> </jetty:handlers> </jetty:jetty> </beans> --- In this case I would like to skip the <sm:serviceunit/> completely to have only the jetty component. Obviously I'm using servicemix as a normal component container here not in its role as ESB. But why not, better than having two containers and two deployment mechanisms etc. Peter
