geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <>
Subject RE: jetty-deployer branch will be merged back to trunk shortly
Date Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:11:11 GMT
I do not recall any conversation of any significance but, according to my wife, this is not
unusual.  Your idea seems sound and I like it.  I'm not worried about the jars; maybe we can
get back to it after we pass the TCK.

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: David Jencks [] 
	Sent: Wed 12/8/2004 3:26 PM 
	Subject: Re: jetty-deployer branch will be merged back to trunk shortly

	Even after some discussion I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this.
	The way I'm thinking of merging the two would result the possibility of
	deployments with and without (JACC) security enabled for the web app. 
	This would be similar to how the ejb containers can include/exclude
	security interceptors based on their configuration.
	If you want people to be able to run geronimo + jetty without
	geronimo-spec-j2ee-jacc-1.0-xx.jar and geronimo-security-xx.jar
	installed, that could be harder, but I'm not convinced it is possible
	today.  Have you tried it?  The jetty builder certainly references the
	security builder, but this might not be a problem if the security
	elements are not in the plan.
	Can you clarify what you mean?
	david jencks
	On Dec 6, 2004, at 11:29 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
	> The reason that we have JettyWebAppJACCContext and JettyWebAppContext
	> is that I thought that there might be people who want to use jetty in
	> geronimo w/out JACC.  If this is not the case, then it makes sense to
	> merge the two.
	> Regards,
	> Alan
	>       -----Original Message-----
	>       From: David Jencks []
	>       Sent: Tue 12/7/2004 1:22 AM
	>       To:
	>       Cc:
	>       Subject: jetty-deployer branch will be merged back to trunk shortly
	>       The djencks/jetty-deployer1/trunk branch is basically working
	> perfectly
	>       so I plan to merge it back to trunk shortly.
	>       missing features:
	>       1. default locale configs.  These can be specified in web.xml but
	> there
	>       aren't any defaults like jetty has in default-web.xml yet.  Are these
	>       actually useful?
	>       2. default filters work but they are automatically mapped to /*.  The
	>       default filter mapping isn't quite done.
	>       could be improved:
	>       I think we should merge JettyWebAppJACCContext into JettyWebAppContext
	>       and make whether the security interceptors are added dependent on
	>       configuration.
	>       thanks
	>       david jencks

View raw message