it cant out of the box, well maybe you should ping tomcat mailing list before. if somebody is interesting it can help. Doing it manually should be possible (even if i should look further to confirm) but it is really tricky for an end user standard usage i guess ;).
- Romain 2012/5/1 Will Hoover <java.whoo...@gmail.com> > I would be interested on how to accomplish it. > > BTW, I know the thread is over a year old, but Mark Thomas says it can't be > done yet: http://grokbase.com/t/tomcat/users/113h2c3j55/tomcat-v7-embedded > > -----Original Message----- > From: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibu...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 2:56 PM > To: users@openejb.apache.org > Subject: Re: Is OpenEJB + Jetty dead? > > i didnt try it but as in tomee we add servlet programmatically i dont see > anything blocking to do it for listener etc... so i guess that's possible > to use tomcat API to do so > > - Romain > > > 2012/5/1 Will Hoover <java.whoo...@gmail.com> > > > Embedded Tomcat 7 is very limited on functionality. One of the missing > > features is the ability to run within a self-contained executable JAR. > This > > feature is vital when using it as a truly embedded solution. Unless you > > know > > something that I don't (which could very well be the case)? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:rmannibu...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 2:39 PM > > To: users@openejb.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Is OpenEJB + Jetty dead? > > > > couldnt we use tomcat? i find easy to hack tomcat than starting to > > integrate jetty > > > > thoughts? > > > > - Romain > > > > > > 2012/5/1 Will Hoover <java.whoo...@gmail.com> > > > > > A basic solution would probably work in the short-term, but at some > point > > > we > > > would need a certified solution going forward due to vendor > > > requirements/restrictions. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jonathan Gallimore [mailto:jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 1:00 PM > > > To: users@openejb.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: Is OpenEJB + Jetty dead? > > > > > > There's obviously been a big focus on Tomcat with the work that's gone > on > > > with getting TomEE released and certified. I've always been really keen > > on > > > getting OpenEJB working with Jetty, and have had a very basic setup > > working > > > which I have previously used for functional testing: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://openejb.apache.org/functional-testing-with-openejb,-jetty-and-seleniu > > > m.html > > > > > > I'd love to work on this some more if there's demand for it. Getting > > > something basic working I suspect wouldn't be too difficult, but > getting > > a > > > certified solution would probably be a lot of work and so would be a > > longer > > > term goal. Do you need a certified solution or would something more > basic > > > be > > > enough to get you going? > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > > > > On 1 May 2012, at 13:41, "Will Hoover" <java.whoo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Is the initial OpenEJB + Jetty now a dead initiative? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason why I ask is because the new embedded feature in Tomcat 7 > > > still > > > > is cumbersome to implement when compared to Jetty. This is especially > > > true > > > > when a "real" embedded solution is desired that does not require a > > > directory > > > > structure to maintain. Jetty allows you to set handlers without > > > designating > > > > a home directory for web applications (which is very convenient when > > > > embedding within Java SE/JavaFX applications). I know Tomcat has done > > > this > > > > for compliance reasons, but just as OpenEJB has revolutionized the > EJB > > > world > > > > by features outside the norm, so has Jetty in some respects. Don't > get > > me > > > > wrong, I love Tomcat and use it extensively when applicable, but > > > sometimes > > > > it makes more sense to use Jetty. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
