[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [rt-pmc] Re: jetty7 distribution
- From: Thomas Watson <tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:20:37 -0500
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
I think "works with" can only be applied if the "optional" stuff you work with is not actually shipped in the download artifacts you make available from eclipse. So you would still have to find a place to host these other bits until the IP process can be done to pull these bits into Eclipse.
I get the impression that is not the outcome you desire for the jetty 7 release. I think you actually need the bits contained in one easy download for your jetty users.
Jesse McConnell ---07/28/2009 02:38:04 PM---Ok, I just had a talk with Barb Cochrane about this situation and
Jesse McConnell <jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx>
rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx, "Jetty @ Eclipse developer discussion list" <jetty-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
07/28/2009 02:38 PM
[rt-pmc] Re: jetty7 distribution
Ok, I just had a talk with Barb Cochrane about this situation and
there might be another way of talking about this...so I'll back up a
bit and describe things another way and see if anything changes.
as Barb commented on this CQ there is the works with dependency that
some of these things might fall under, specifically the items we are
talking about here that are kind of holding up the release.
Eclipse seems to have a term for dependencies called works with which
means that it is basically an optional dependency that the project may
or may not need.
Normal jetty startup:
> java -jar start.jar
To start jetty with jsp:
> java -jar start.jar OPTIONS=default,jsp
This would load up the jsp jars into the runtime and then jsp would be
supported. Does this qualify as a works with dependency that we would
be able to fulfill the eclipse release requirements with? If so I am
being told that we can avoid all of this nasty approval through normal
IP channels stuff and still adhere to the letter of the law as it
Does this 'works with' term apply here?
also for the cometd war file, that is a sample war file that we bring
into the distribution for demo purposes with our test applications we
bundle in the distribution...remove it and jetty still runs
fine...would that also be a 'works with' dependency?
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:14, Jesse McConnell<jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I started up a thread on this earlier and it ended up taking a spin
> off into other things and I need to steer it back to the topic of our
> two jsp artifacts and the cometd war file.
> https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3457 - jsp-api-2.1
> patched glassfish jasper api from glassfish tag
> https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3458 - jsp-2.1 patched
> glassfish jasper api from glassfish tag SJSAS-9_1_1-B60F-07_Jan_2009
> https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3459 - cometd demo war
> file used for showing cometd features of jetty-distribution
> Following the vein of the last thread I have started the process of
> getting these artifacts into CQ's. I have no idea how long this will
> take to make it through as we are largely dealing with source and
> processes that are outside of the jetty realm (being glassfish).
> While jasper itself has been approved multiple times by the looks of
> it in IPzilla, this is a different source location, different process
> for contribution, etc etc.
> I will not dispute the desire or need to have a proper official JSP
> bundle/artifact that eclipse gets behind in the future, but for the
> time being we would like to get our jetty7 release out the door from
> eclipse and get moving on the parallel development and deployment of
> jetty8 with servlet 3.0 features and get those in the hands of our
> users as well. It seems that these three artifacts are what are
> holding us up from being able to make our jetty7 distribution and link
> to it for users to download from eclipse.org as we have been for the
> RC and Milestone releases up til now.
> It sounds like we need an official exemption for us to ship our
> jetty-distribution in the short term in a form that is akin to the
> previous releases of jetty. We'll be more then happy to switch over
> to an official eclipse backed jsp implementation and api once one
> exists in a form we can use but for the time being we have users that
> we need to get an official jetty7 release out for.
> Is this going to be possible or do I need to start chasing down the
> alternative distribution scenarios for the jetty7 release?
> jesse mcconnell
rt-pmc mailing list