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 23:22:59 GMT
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>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 seems to me there are two possibilities.  One is to encourage
> GBean-level configuration instead of deployment plan configuration for
> uncommon features.  The other is to provide more generic expansion
> elements in the deployment plan, so it gets a little uglier beyond the
> standard features, but is still possible (you know, with
> "web-container-param name=foo value=bar" or whatever).  If someone can
> compile a list of those cases, we can think through which way to handle
> them.  But I don't think this should hold up the Tomcat/Jetty plan
> unification.  I'm definitely not willing to hold it up just in case Greg 
> thinks up something incompatible in a future version of Jetty -- that's 
> pretty silly IMHO.

No-one is saying that. What I am saying is that there are 
implementations out there other than the current Jetty and Tomcat 
versions and we want those to work too. We don't need to implement them, 
but we don't want to make it impossible to implement them.

This is not hard to do. For example, you can define an interface exposed 
by a built application that allows a container to invoke it; we can have 
an implementation which unifies the current Jetty and Tomcat runtime 
code (and hence the builder code as well). Someone can also implement an 
enhanced Jetty, Tomcat, Jetty 6 or MyMagicWebServer version that offers 
additional capabilities.

So what I'm saying is, go ahead with unification but as part of that 
define the interfaces and leave the door open.


View raw message