So now for the proposal: is it OK to you if I commit the Jetty support in CVS? We grow by 700KB, but we gain IMHO a hell of a lot in flexibility.
My opinion (since you asked for it...)
- no to commit Jetty into cvs (we don't have Tomcat in cvs, wo why having Jetty?)
Well:
1. we used to have Juggernaut in the past for the CORBA stuff. eXist ships, IIRC, with Tomcat, Cocoon and Forrest ship with Jetty, Slide ships with Tomcat: if you need an application server *and* you're not (just) a web application IMHO it makes a a lot of sense to embed a lightweight application server.
2. users. I can already imagine people wondering why on earth Xindice has to be a webapp in order to be accessed from the network. In fact, actually, Xindice has *always* been a web application: 1.0 is running with an HTTP server as well, but it's an embedded one. Users didn't really complain then since it was all gracefully tied together. Embedding an application server might ease *a lot* the migration path: think about shipping by default with Jetty configured on port 4080, which used to be the Xindice port in the past... think about having a "start" and "stop" command lying around Xindice, with the feeling of a standalone environment and without a need to download, set up, install your own Tomcat/Jetty/whatever. All this for a mere 700KB lying under the /tools directory (not messing up with the general /java/lib): looks a good deal to me. :-)
3. developers. My productibity with Jetty is now orders of magnitude greater. Just "build run" and everything is recompiled and started automagically, in *seconds* by Jetty (not in *minutes* by Tomcat). And think about your nightly test (cool stuff!) being run automatically by Gump...
Isn't all this worth 700KB? ;-)
Ciao,
-- Gianugo
