tomee-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Jetty Support
Date Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:43:56 GMT
I'm not enough familiar with jetty to say you we will not have it at all
(wait a day or two i think you'll have better answer ;))

I know tomcat starts to implement Websockets and i want to switch our
tomcat version as soon as it will work.

- Romain


2012/1/30 john70 <johndoe70@mail.ru>

> Hi Romain,
>
> Thank you very much for response!
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau wrote
> >
> > Why do you prefer jetty? You can run tomee in a test, you can use
> > arquillian, you can run it from your pom too. Do you prefer jetty because
> > of jetty or because of something missing to tomcat/tomee?
> >
>
> First because of Jetty and second because Jetty has full and rock solid
> support for WebSockets protocol. I know that JEE7 will add WebSockets
> support later this year to the Servlet specification. But for me it is not
> clear when Tomcat will add support for WebSockets. And if Tomcat developers
> add support for WebSockets, they will need time to make it bug-free and
> rock
> solid. And Jetty developers (especially Greg Wilkins) have participated in
> the development process of WebSockets protocol and have a working
> implementation for at least one year.
>
> Currently we are using JBoss 4.2 with Jetty and it works very well. But
> JBoss 4.2 is really old and we would like to replace it with something new.
> We are looking currently at all application servers and one option was/is
> to
> use Jetty with OpenEJB. But if you don't have support for Jetty or do not
> plan to add support for Jetty, than we can remove OpenEJB from out
> candidates list.
>
> Best regards,
> John
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Jetty-Support-tp4340294p4340539.html
> Sent from the OpenEJB User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message