geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <>
Subject Re: Jetty for Geronimo with annotations?
Date Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:02:12 GMT

David Jencks wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2007, at 11:07 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>> David Jencks wrote:
>>> I think enough support is already in released versions of jetty for 
>>> our purposes, the main thing I'm aware of that's left is hooking up 
>>> the injection stuff we fish out using tim's new code to the jetty 
>>> injection processor.
>> That may be.  What was making me wonder was seeing items like this: 
>> making references to a Jetty 6.1.2beta with additional annotation 
>> support.   It's not clear to me if it is required that the annotations 
>> are support for the resource injection and callbacks in order to be 
>> spec compliant  ... so, I thought I should ask.
> We require support for that, but I think that since we've taken over 
> pretty much all the deployment stuff from jetty, we have to figure out 
> what needs to be injected and feed that into jetty's injection system.  
> I believe the injection system itself is already released.  It might be 
> in a jetty plus jar.  I was thinking of taking a look at this 
> shortly.... were you also?

I was really operating at a less detailed level ... just trying to 
determine if we need to get a newer version of Jetty prior to our 2.0 
release and if so, make it known before it's too late.   I'm sure I 
could learn some by digging into the Jetty code on this but you could 
probably do it a fraction of the time ... so by all means go ahead!  If 
I get ambitious I may try to check it out myself (in which case I'll 
probably be asking you some more question :-)  ).


>>> On Feb 22, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>> Jan, Greg, any other Jetty experts ...
>>>> I know that there is work going on to get annotation support 
>>>> included in a Jetty (6.1.2*).  Is there a release planned soon that 
>>>> we could pick up in for Geronimo 2.0 (ie. soon enough that we could 
>>>> maybe get it included and tested before JavaOne).
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Joe

View raw message