cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
Subject Re: jetty 7: CXF-2898
Date Sat, 17 Jul 2010 16:08:18 GMT
On Thursday 15 July 2010 9:53:28 pm Benson Margulies wrote:
> The continuation code is very different. I attached a first pass
> patch. It does not pass unit tests because I am completely flummoxed
> by mock, and I may not understand what's going on with the
> continuations.

Digging into this a bit, it definitely gets a bit complicated.   In Jetty 7, 
the continuations will only work if you have the Jetty6 continuation support 
jar OR if you have Servlet API 3.0 available.  

I'm leaning toward changing our servlet api jar from 2.5 to 3.0.   However, if 
I do that , it would make sense to rip all the continuation stuff out of the 
Jetty module and promote it up to the AbstractHttpDestination (providing I can 
detect if servlet 3 is avail and bypass on a 2.5 container.   Doing that would 
allow the continuations to work with any Servlet 3 container such as the newer 
tomcats and such.    That's obviously a bit more work, but I think there is 
some value in it.

Long term, there are some other interesting things that can be done with 
Servlet 3.   One example is a password handler for ws-sec that would 
authenticate with the Servlet container.   It could make UsernamePassword a 
bit easier to use on certain containers.


Dan



> 
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Willem Jiang <willem.jiang@gmail.com> 
wrote:
> > Daniel Kulp wrote:
> >> On Thursday 15 July 2010 2:33:26 pm Benson Margulies wrote:
> >>> The first part of the JIRA I filed above is easy: make a new project
> >>> that depends on jetty 7 instead of 6.
> >>> 
> >>> I'm somewhat rusty after that. A profile in systests to use it? Where
> >>> is the default transport established (which I don't propose to change)
> >>> but what else is called for?
> >> 
> >> Well, I guess there is a question of whether is makes sense to make 2.3
> >> use Jetty 7 and have 2.2 remain at 6.    I would actually be OK with
> >> that. How much would the CODE change?   Is it just the dependencies or
> >> does it require a lot of code changes as well?
> > 
> > Jetty 7 changed its package name to start with org.eclipse, so the code
> > could be changed a bit.
> > 
> > Willem

-- 
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://dankulp.com/blog

Mime
View raw message