Re: [jetty-dev] 7.0.0.M0 progress

[Jesse McConnell <jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx>]

I have deployed the 7.0.0.M0 version to the staging location..

http://oss.repository.sonatype.org/content/repositories/jetty-stage-003/

So it is clear this is likely _NOT_ what will be released, it is an
intermediary staging so we can get comfortable with what it will look
like and to check out the osgi manifests, etc etc.

Anywho...wanted to link it to folks to review.  The traditional
download artifact is located in o.e.j.jetty-distribution

cheers!

jesse

--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx



On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 13:23, Jesse McConnell <jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Jan has checked most of the OSGi meta data except webapp and xml,
>> so can you have a look at those.
>
> I went back over this and ended up axing out most everything..here is why..
>
> * updated the bundle plugin to 2.0.0
> * part of the reasoning behind our flat dir structure + segmenting of
> packaging in our jars was so that these things could be automatically
> generated for us, ergo no more having to fiddle with this goop
> * in the jetty-project pom, the plugin is configured with the
> duplication that was in each of these
> * checked the MANIFEST against that of an equinox one and we have the
> missing Bundle-* items in there now
>
> Now, regarding the import and export packaging..I read up on the
> workings of this from the bundle plugin documentation as afaick we are
> fine with the defaults.  We would only need to be masking out internal
> implementation packages if we were exporting some sort of api.  The
> automatically generated Import and export are now pretty large, but
> they accurately (at least from what I have checked out) the current
> situation.  I did grab a chunk of one and mail separately to Jeff
> McAffer to sanity check the defaults we are using now.  Seems to me we
> could be ok with o.e.j.server.* without specifically stating each
> subpackage but hopefully he can clue is in if that finer grained
> resolution is valuable.
>
>> I definitely broke annotations when I gutted them from the early
>> 3.0 version, but I'm not sure if we want to hold up an M0 for that.
>
> not a big deal imo
>
>> I've built org.cometd against a 7.0.0.M0 snapshot using the
>> new continuation API and that is working fine (albeit with only
>> a little testing other than the test harnesses).
>
>
>> As part of that, I switched the 7.0.0.M0 to use the javax.servlet
>> servlet-api rather than the mortbay servlet-api.  It felt cleaner
>> than having excludes to resolve conflicts.  Do we need to do a new
>> CQ for that?
>
> Already added that after you mentioned wanting to do this last week :)
>
> https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3225
>
>> Other little issues are:
>>
>> The distribution is not pulling in the new jetty-continuation jar
>
> fixed
>
>> The distribution is not creating an empty logs directory
>
> fixed
>
> cheers,
> jesse
>