Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <4668131E.1060608@hanik.com>
References: <46680332.80507@hanik.com> <466807E9.6060104@apache.org>
 <4668131E.1060608@hanik.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-3--1026891878
Message-Id: <CB752F52-AB02-4E66-9941-D3E65AF49D32@objektpark.de>
From: Peter Rossbach <pr@objektpark.de>
Subject: Re: Bayeux implementation
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 10:27:34 +0200
To: "Tomcat Developers List" <dev@tomcat.apache.org>

--Apple-Mail-3--1026891878
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed

Hi Filip,

Great, I think it is a good time to start talking about Bayeux /dojo  
as a standard comet protocol. The current different Async/comet  
server API's  make it very strong to start for most programmers. I  
review the Jetty Bayeux implementation and find it very useful.
OK, really the current "spec doc" is strange, but it's good enough   
to start discussions. Please, let us start talks with other
Bayeux folks.

How can I help?

Peter

+1: to start bayeux implementation at a sandbox.


Am 07.06.2007 um 16:15 schrieb Filip Hanik - Dev Lists:

> Remy Maucherat wrote:
>> Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
>>> yo,
>>> I was gonna create a Bayeux implementation for Tomcat,
>>> I am thinking it might be good for us to work with the Jetty and  
>>> Glassfish folks to use the same org.dojox interfaces.
>>
>> I don't like dependencies ;) I am not interested in working with  
>> these two projects, which had relationships with Tomcat in the  
>> past, but chose to end them.
> not working with the projects is your personal prerogative, the  
> rest of the community might not be against it. I am not and one  
> more post thought it was a good idea.
> I think the relationships especially around bayeux can be very  
> beneficial for all of us, as we can be part of it dictating the  
> direction of it instead of just having to respond to it due to user  
> demand.
> I'd like to know if anyone else is strongly against it, since I  
> don't think past events should dictate if we join this initiative  
> or not.
>>> Question: Where should I do this, sandbox or trunk?
>>
>> Sandbox, I think.
> Sandbox it is.
>>
>>> Why Bayeux? Cause there is a good client support through the Dojo  
>>> toolkit.
>>
>> I was wondering if it was a standard, so I guess client support is  
>> a benefit. However, the spec itself looks bad at the moment  
>> (unless I missed something).
> If the spec is bad, then its another reason for us to join in, but  
> the fact that there is a client support, speaks for itself.
> Comet is very popular but the skillset to create a client that  
> works in a browser is hard to find. This was very much the feedback  
> we got during Apachecon EU in Amsterdam.
>
> Whether we use it or not, we can decide on later. In the meantime  
> I'll touch base with the folks and get the ball rolling.
>
> Filip
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>


--Apple-Mail-3--1026891878--