Hi Ashton,
Your optimism seems misplaced; I heard several suggestions that you
pick another
web server to depend on. The http server is an unsupported utility;
nothing more.
BTW, my mailer marks this email as a possible scam because the link is
malformed.
Also, the mention of jdk6 is an
Based on the responses received so far, it sounds like there are no
reservations about the below 4 points. I believe it's safe to assume that
everyone is in agreement that the below 4 points are good to go with
On Tuesday, 20 February 2018, 16:15:56 GMT, Ashton Hogan
wrote:
These ite
> I think that any other OpenJDK community member owes you anything, and
you would do well to remember that.
I agree, no one owes anyone anything. That's why I'm trying to make an offer to
do the work at a cost or take the code and distribute under a different
license. I'm offering a business de
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Ashton Hogan wrote:
> David, I understand that you don't use this feature of the JDK and that's
> absolutely fine. I'm not the type of person to impose my way of doing things
> on anyone. I hope that you aren't either. There are obviously many people in
> the commu
Thanks Alan, I'm aware of these options.
Again, I'll refer you to the 4 points that this discussion was intended for.
On Tuesday, 20 February 2018, 20:22:05 GMT, Alan Bateman
wrote:
On 20/02/2018 19:52, David Lloyd wrote:
> enough that the internal server is
> almost a legacy artifact a
On 20/02/2018 19:52, David Lloyd wrote:
enough that the internal server is
almost a legacy artifact at this point (after all it was IIRC only
introduced to support the in-JDK web services classes which may soon
be dropped from the JDK altogether).
Yes, the original motive for this small HTTP serv
David, I understand that you don't use this feature of the JDK and that's
absolutely fine. I'm not the type of person to impose my way of doing things on
anyone. I hope that you aren't either. There are obviously many people in the
community that DO love and use this httpserver for many reasons
Ashton, I don't think anyone disagrees with your four points at a high
level (though #4 might be a bit subjective, and #2 and #3 are
obviously design points that would theoretically be subject to
debate).
However, at the same time, you're not really going to see anyone
lining up and clamoring for
Hi Rob
Can you please read what I initially asked again, I'm not asking about new
frameworks or web servers. I'm stating 4 points that need to be addressed in
the EXISTING jdk6 web server. Again, if you disagree with any of these 4 points
can you please state WHY and WHAT the alternative to the
W.r.t. alternatives the HTTP serving landscape on the JVM is rich and
diverse at this point. Projects worth a look include Grizzly, Netty, Jetty,
Tomcat, Undertow, Rapidoid and the many cool frameworks build on top of
these technologies. (e.g. Jooby, SparkJava, Play to name a few)
-Rob
On 20
10 matches
Mail list logo
