felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alin Dreghiciu" <adreghi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: http.jetty based on Jetty 6
Date Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:41:32 GMT
On Jan 16, 2008 3:06 PM, Rob Walker <robw@ascert.com> wrote:
> ...
> That's one reason I've always been reluctant to see the Felix Http Service
> "adorned" or extended with features beyond the standard. I can see how
> beneficial such extensions are, but they then mean bundles and
> applications using the extended services couldn't easily swap to an
> alternate "standard" Http Service. It's a challenge to "lock-down" Jetty
> so we get the best of it's optimised Http handling without some of the
> features that aren't part of the OSGi spec, but I believe it's a
> worthwhile one.

I guess that people that want to swap Http Service implementations
they will stick to Http Service API so basically they should get the
same expected behavior on using any of the implementations.
Extensions can be added as like there was another service that they
can use. and when a developer commits to just a fact I'm pretty sure
that they need the extended features and they are not expecting to
find the Extended service. The approach on Pax Web is to publish
another service named WebContainer. Once you get hold of that service
you can then (and only then) use the http service extensions. We do
not have our own version of HttpService and by using the plain
HttpService you get exactly what you would expect to get by reading
the specs. So this, I would say, is the best of both worlds.


View raw message