geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremy Boynes <>
Subject Re: Deployment Dependencies
Date Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:21:31 GMT
David Jencks wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2005, at 11:03 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>> For the second, one of the reasons we went with two implementations 
>> was to allow each to take advantage of advanced features of each web 
>> container rather than being constrained by the lowest common 
>> denominator. I would suggest the best thing here would be to define a 
>> set of common APIs for interfaces between the listeners, the central 
>> container and the web applications. Then perhaps there could be a 
>> common support infrastructure that supported the LCD but each 
>> implementation would be able to specialize as necessary.
>> Basically don't force the LCD on everyone.
> This sounds good, but so far IIUC we haven't found any differences that 
> can be expressed in the web app plan.  Again IIUC, the only difference 
> in content currently between jetty and tomcat plans is support for 
> virtual host specification in the tomcat plans.  This is supported by 
> jetty as well, we just need to add it.  I'd like to see a plausible 
> example before discarding the convenience of hypothetical container 
> neutral plans.

Have we actually looked for differences? For example, I'm not a Tomcat 
expert but I know there are applications out there that use custom 
Valves which is a Tomcat specific implementation.

It could well be that we can support all useful Jetty and Tomcat 
features using one implementation. With clear interfaces in place, this 
can just be the LCD implementation; however, we still have the 
opportunity to support more advanced, unshared features through 
specialization of this. Let's not lose that.

That may be based on the LCD implementation but may also be different - 
for example, Greg is re-architecting Jetty for V6 and who knows how that 
will be integrated.


View raw message