One problem, is that xbean does not really complains if it finds a tag that it can not understand. Are you sure that the necesarry informations are available in the classpath ? Mainly the jetty-xbean jar.
Cheers, Guillaume Nodet On 4/10/06, Peter Klotz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > >
