Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
In-Reply-To: <FF7CE36846E01B439945B55FFB1DF5BE0863E4@mail.toolazydogs.com>
References: <FF7CE36846E01B439945B55FFB1DF5BE0863E4@mail.toolazydogs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <6A32EC2E-4957-11D9-8F70-000D93361CAA@gluecode.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: David Jencks <djencks@gluecode.com>
Subject: Re: jetty-deployer branch will be merged back to trunk shortly
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:26:17 -0800
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org

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?

thanks
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 [mailto:david_jencks@yahoo.com]
> 	Sent: Tue 12/7/2004 1:22 AM
> 	To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
> 	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
> 	
> 	
>