cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <>
Subject Re: Jetty dependency
Date Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:14:02 GMT
On Tuesday 03 April 2007 13:06, Liu, Jervis wrote:
> > So lets say we now have two DestinationFactory  
> > implementations available in the classpath, one is
> > JettyDestinationFactory  another one is
> > GeronimoDestinationFactory, how do we control which one gets
> > picked up by bus? As long as we still ship
> > JettyDestinationFactory with the distribution and have its
> > cxf-extension-http.xml in the classpath,
> > JettyDestinationFactory will get loaded. We cant say in order
> > to load your own DestinationFactory implementation, you need
> > to remove JettyDestinationFactory's cxf-extension-http.xml  
> > from classpath then add your DestinationFactory' extension
> > file into classpath. We will need sth else...
> To answer my own question, do you mean we seperate current
> cxf-rt-transports-http-2.0-incubator-RC-SNAPSHOT.jar into two jars,
> one is for basic http support stuff, one is for Jetty, lets call it
> cxf-http-jetty.jar here. So if users do not want to use jetty, they
> just don't put cxf-http-jetty jar into their classpath. So this works
> I believe, the only issue is that users wont be able to use that
> single cxf-bundle jar ( I believe we do want  Jetty stuff in our
> cxf-bundle jar as this is our default support for http, don't we?)

Right.  That's exactly what I mean.   For "normal" users using the bundle 
jar, no impact.    However, for the embedded developers using the full 
module approach (expecially those using Maven), they can selectively not 
include the Jetty stuff if they don't want/need it.

J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194

View raw message