Mailing-List: contact dev-help@felix.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@felix.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4AA95304.7000307@ungoverned.org>
References: <4AA8A1C1.5040309@gmail.com>
	 <67831c590909101215m1d6b96b2s531d303f179da513@mail.gmail.com>
	 <67831c590909101219q4ae8aff7y1b8ea84f8cd4e5a8@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4AA951AE.4020306@ungoverned.org>
	 <67831c590909101224u2c809a2asda051d768ba69a37@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4AA95304.7000307@ungoverned.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:33:20 +0200
Message-ID: <67831c590909101233q4834687iceb46e54376a93e8@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: HttpService import
From: Sten Roger Sandvik <srs@x3m.com>
To: dev@felix.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f20bdca093b604733e45ce

--001485f20bdca093b604733e45ce
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Richard S. Hall <heavy@ungoverned.org>wrote:

> On 9/10/09 15:24, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote:
>
>> Yes, that would be the best thing for trunk. So, I propose we delete
>> http.jetty folder and import the new under http folder.
>>
>>
>
> If it is still using Jetty, then why are we not just keeping the http.jetty
> module?
>

The new httpservice implementation has more than one module. It's structured
in a way that you can have multiple implementation using the same "core"
functionality. Jetty module is only starting the jetty engine and
registering a dispatcherservlet to jetty. All code that is handling the
startup and property settings is essentialy the same in both old and new,
but it differs on the actual "dispatching" of requests.

So we can either have a nested module structure like this (what is in the
new code):

* http
* http/api
* http/jetty
* http/bridge
... etc ...

Or a flatten structure like this:

* http.api
* http.jetty
* http.bridge
... etc ...

Nested module structure is by far the easiest when it comes to compling only
the httpservice implementation which now is composted of multiple modules.

/srs


>
> -> richard
>
>  On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Richard S. Hall<heavy@ungoverned.org
>> >wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> In that case we can just replace the current impl (keeping the name), but
>>> call it version 2.0.0, no?
>>>
>>> ->  richard
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/10/09 15:19, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> To be cear: new http.jetty service should be a 100% dropin replacement
>>>> for
>>>> the old http.jetty service. I think it's pretty close right now since
>>>> the
>>>> actual implementation of new http.jetty bundle is almost the same code
>>>> as
>>>> the old one.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Sten Roger Sandvik<srs@x3m.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The current http.jetty implementation is almost identical to the new
>>>>> http/jetty implementation. So in my opinion it's not neccesarry to keep
>>>>> implementing on the old one, unless it's some really good points in
>>>>> doing
>>>>> so. So the folder could then be http (just use another version than
>>>>> http.jetty).
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Sten Roger
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Felix Meschberger<fmeschbe@gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The IP Clearance vote period will soon end and we will be able to
>>>>>> import
>>>>>> the HttpService contribution by Sten Roger Sandvik [1].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking at the current folders in the Felix trunk, I consider
>>>>>> importing
>>>>>> the modules into a httpservice folder (we already have a http.jetty
>>>>>> project, which is the Jetty Embedding HttpService implementation).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WDYT ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Felix
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-1456
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

--001485f20bdca093b604733e45ce--