tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: tomcat7-websocket web-fragment is wrong?
Date Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:41:27 GMT
Yes but if it runs in a JavaEE container (J2EE doesn't exist anymore
if i'm not mistaken) or at least a servlet container what is the
minimum required?
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau



2013/10/29 Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org>:
> On 29/10/2013 13:24, Niki Dokovski wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/10/2013 13:01, Niki Dokovski wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 29/10/2013 12:41, Niki Dokovski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> WebSocket container can be used in Java SE env only but for a standard
>>>>> JSR
>>>>>> 356 compliance implementation an existing servlet container is needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it is not.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically you are correct if you don't refer to JSR 356. But my
>>> question
>>>>>> was related to improving the spec, triggered by Romain's question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong again.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can implement a specification compliant JSR 356 server container
>>>>> without implementing any other J2EE specs. This was an explicit design
>>>>> decision made by the JSR 356 EG and explains, for example, why the
>>>>> HttpSession instance is passed as Object rather than as
>>>>> javax.servlet.http.HttpSession.
>>>>>
>>>>> I still do not see where, how or why there is a specification issue
>>> here.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The simple fact that you cannot pass the TCK, hence claim compatibility
>>>> proves the other way.
>>>
>>> If the TCK requires that the WebSocket implementation be part of a J2EE
>>> container then that is an issue with the TCK. I only had access to a
>>> draft of the TCK and there were much more fundamental issues with it at
>>> that stage.
>>>
>>
>> IMHO Those fundamental issues still exist then. Which still lead to a need
>> of clarity on EG, which was my original question. :)
>
> I still don't see the need. Section 6.3 makes it very clear it is not
> required to run in a J2EE container.
>
> Mark
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org


Mime
View raw message