[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [equinox-dev] R6 httpservice update
|
Hi Tom, Ray, others.
FWIW, I've been trying to understand the situation WRT HttpService at
Apache (Karaf, Felix)...and I just made a somewhat modest proposal [1].
To summarize this proposal...given that
1) there are likely lots of consumers of HttpService...many of them
interested in the rfc-189 enhancements
2) the Apache-based community is in a similar situation to the EF
community...of wanting to move to more recent/standards-compliant impls of
HttpService
3) Both orgs are already using Jetty...and are looking to continue this
My proposal: it would help to coordinate work on this across
foundations/orgs, across corps, across projects...and thereby spread the
necessary work. Further, it would/could reduce the individual 'stepping
up' that's required to get to a strong standards-compliant
implementation...perhaps more quickly.
I would offer to propose/push this idea at EclipseCon, but cannot...so
have to leave it as a bug in your respective ears.
Scott
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/users%40felix.apache.org/msg15174.html
> Awesome,
>
> This is a great response.
>
> Perhaps at EclipseCon I can demonstrate what I currently have to you Tom
> as
> we discussed (and perhaps others who are interested and in attendance).
>
> We can figure out if there is something here to work with.
>
> - Ray
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Thomas Watson <tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ray,
>>
>> I think your work in the "bridged" environment fits well with our
>> existing
>> implementation of the HttpService. Our implementation has a base bundle
>> that implements the details of the HttpService, but the backing
>> webcontainer implementation is left to something else (another bundle).
>> For example, we provide a separate bundle that uses jetty to implement
>> the
>> backing container. This is what is used to serve up help in Eclipse.
>> But
>> our base http service implementation can also be embedded in a "bridged"
>> scenario with a WAR using any hosting JEE server.
>>
>> I think it would be great to get your involvement in the project. If
>> you
>> have some proof of concept code we can certainly work towards nominating
>> you as a committer for ongoing work to develop an R6 HttpService
>> implementation within the Equinox project.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: Inactive hide details for Raymond Auge ---03/06/2014 02:19:24
>> PM---Hey guys, Some of you may be aware that I'm working on a
>> ver]Raymond
>> Auge ---03/06/2014 02:19:24 PM---Hey guys, Some of you may be aware that
>> I'm working on a very prototypical (pre
>>
>> From: Raymond Auge <raymond.auge@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> Date: 03/06/2014 02:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: [equinox-dev] R6 httpservice update
>> Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> Some of you may be aware that I'm working on a very prototypical (pre
>> alpha) impl of this.
>>
>> It will be open source regardless. But I've been given permission to
>> make
>> the suggestion of offering this to bootstrap or at least as a thought
>> experiment for a collaboration of this work (the impl is pretty fresh
>> and
>> so is open to any change at all). We'd certainly benefit from all the
>> experience here.
>>
>> Couple of caveats:
>>
>> 1) I'm not an Eclipse commiter but I already have to dedicate effort to
>> both implementing and maintaining this long term (modularity being a key
>> strategy for us) which could be of benefit to an sustained project under
>> equinox.
>>
>> 2) Our impl is specifically geared to "bridged" environments. However, I
>> think that it would be feasible to actually separate the part that's
>> pure
>> support of the OSGi side, from the part that either speaks to the
>> bridge,
>> or the embedded http server. Frankly that'd be ideal.
>>
>> Anyway, it's just a thought!
>>
>> - Ray
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Thomas Watson
>> <*tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx*<tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > From: *slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx* <slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>> > >
>> > > There are no definite plans to implement the R6 httpservice
>> > > implementation.
>> > > But this is something I would like to see happen.
>> >
>> > FWIW...me/us too. For context: we have remote service providers
>> that
>> > depend upon HttpService, and it would be very nice for those and
>> other
>> > providers to use the R6 HttpService updates as soon as possible.
>> >
>> > We also have a pending contribution of a remote service provider
>> that's
>> > based upon/uses websockets [1] and would like to make that
>> contribution
>> > available to our consumers in Luna timeframe.
>>
>> I'm glad to hear there are folks interested, but we still need
>> someone
>> to drive the implementation.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > >In order for it to
>> > > happen though we need an owner to step up to implement it.
>> >
>> > Perhaps this could be done by multiple committers collaborating
>> > cross-project rather than (e.g.) one equinox committer. Perhaps
>> also the
>> > corporate members (others of which would probably also like to see
>> > this...is my guess) could contribute support to such cross-project
>> > collaboration.
>>
>> I was not intending to say this work has to be done by a single
>> committer. But we do need someone with enough vested interest to
>> drive
>> this to completion.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > >I know Gunnar
>> > > showed interest, but I don't know if he is in the position to
>> drive the
>> > > implementation.
>> >
>> > I don't know either. Unfortunately I cannot commit to drive it
>> > myself...I've got enough on my own plate already. Although I
>> can/would be
>> > willing to contribute/collaborate.
>>
>> I'm willing to start a branch for the work, but I myself cannot spend
>> lots of time on it either. After all I have to convince my employer
>> to pay
>> me for this work also ;-)
>>
>>
>> >
>> > >As for Luna, this cannot happen since the spec will not
>> > > be
>> > > done in time.
>> >
>> > Is that true? I was under the impression that the rfc-189 work
>> would be
>> > in R6.
>>
>> It is but that is R6 compendium. Compendium R6 is not going to be
>> ready in time for Luna. I'm actually not sure when it will be final.
>> I
>> just sat through an EG meeting today and there is still significant
>> work
>> going on in the RFC. We have API freeze for Luna tomorrow (M6).
>>
>>
>> >
>> > >We would need to start in a branch that can be merged to
>> > > master at an appropriate time for a release.
>> >
>> > Sure. Is this something that can/should be discussed at the
>> > RT-PMC...and/or at upcoming EclipseCon? Seems to me likely that
>> many (at
>> > least) runtime projects likely use HttpService...and so I suspect
>> you and
>> > I are not alone in wanting to see it happen.
>> >
>> > Scott
>>
>> Sure we can discuss this at EclipseCon.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> equinox-dev mailing list
>> *equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx* <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> *https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev*<https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Raymond Augé* <http://www.liferay.com/web/raymond.auge/profile>
>> (@rotty3000)
>> Senior Software Architect
>> *Liferay, Inc.* <http://www.liferay.com/> (@Liferay)
>> _______________________________________________
>> equinox-dev mailing list
>> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> equinox-dev mailing list
>> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Raymond Augé* <http://www.liferay.com/web/raymond.auge/profile>
> (@rotty3000)
> Senior Software Architect
> *Liferay, Inc.* <http://www.liferay.com> (@Liferay)
> _______________________________________________
> equinox-dev mailing list
> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
>
