1) I am attaching some doc on a Jetty-Xindice install (which, thanks to this discussion, i was motivated to do & to write up)
. i would appreciate it if the jetty-jedi's :-} could look it over . can some very nice person commit the doc (plus the 3 tiny patches also diff'd in the attached file)? 2) I apologize for the .tar format, but i found no economical way to in-line the new install doc. it's too big to appear in innocent mailboxes. 3) I was impressed by the jetty-embed in forrest. alleluhia for every saved step! since i can never help adding my 2 cents: . i think it's appropriate to embed jetty in a web doc-oriented app like forrest; i haven't really thought through whether the 'web doc-oriented app' paradigm applies to xindice in the same way. my initial inclination is to discount the embed stuff, given the 'stickiness' of xindice's legacy deployment model & the other priorities at this time . on other fronts, i think it would be helpful to *everyone* to have a high level of vertical support for & integration with jetty 'designed-into' Xindice (i.e. at least as much as tomcat!) it seems to fit the description of what is called for very nicely... if that means bundle ... i could see either way. while web technologies continue to fly along, i think end-users most appreciate software & apps that steadily improve without losing their 'feel' or core focus. forrest can pull this off, but i think that xindice users - and xindice wannabe users (the *real* targets) need the water to warm up a little ... imagine the pressure of introducing a new tomcat4-xindice app into a production setting in 2003. now there's a goal (take this to mean that *some* bundle may be an imperative) all in all, if xindice team delivers a robust & technologically superior product, the manner will not seem important. from this standpoint, i perceive jetty primarily as a tool that improves the process - and a means to an end. i thank you all for the enlightening discussion j
xindocupd.tar
Description: Unix tar archive
