users@grizzly.java.net

Re: Status of grizzly-http-servlet support in Grizzly 2.x

From: Oleksiy Stashok <oleksiy.stashok_at_oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:21:53 +0200

Hi guys,

we're planning to make 2.3 release this week (required by GF), will
appreciate your feedback on Servlet 3.1 support.

Thanks.

WBR,
Alexey.

On 08/15/2012 06:55 PM, Arens, Marc wrote:
> Great! I'll update to the latest snapshot, see how our existing servlets like it
> and then look at the 3.* stuff.
> Thank you very much for the fast implementation.
>
> Oleksiy Stashok <oleksiy.stashok_at_oracle.com> hat am 15. August 2012 um 17:50
> geschrieben:
>> Hi,
>>
>> asynchronous I/O support (Servlet 3.1) is commited as well.
>> Your feedback is welcome :)
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> WBR,
>> Alexey.
>>
>>
>> On 08/15/2012 02:39 PM, Oleksiy Stashok wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> I've commited initial Servlet 3.0-based implementation, it has to
>>> support asynchronous processing (including dispatch).
>>> The Grizzly version is 2.3-SNAPSHOT, sources could be found @ git
>>> branch "2.3.x".
>>> I'm in a process of deploying 2.3-SNAPSHOT binaries to the maven repo,
>>> so they have to be available soon.
>>>
>>> Will appreciate if you can test the implementation and provide feedback.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> WBR,
>>> Alexey.
>>>
>>> On 08/09/2012 02:15 PM, Matthew Swift wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 8 August 2012 20:23, Ryan Lubke <ryan.lubke_at_oracle.com
>>>> <mailto:ryan.lubke_at_oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 8/8/12 7:43 AM, Matthew Swift wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> What is the status of the Servlet support in Grizzly 2.x? Is
>>>> it pretty stable? At the moment it seems to have a dependency
>>>> on Servlet 2.5 - do you plan to support Servlet 3.0 at some
>>>> point[1], in particular the support for asynchronous processing?
>>>>
>>>> What would you guys think of initial support for Servlet 3.1?
>>>> The 3.0 async aspect we can support for sure, but if we moved to
>>>> the 3.1 api, we can expose the non-blocking I/O. Is that of any
>>>> interest?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NIO support is something which is definitely of interest to me in the
>>>> long term, however in the short term I need to maintain compatibility
>>>> with existing J2EE 6 containers.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Matt
> Best regards,
> Marc