On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Mark Thomas <markt_at_apache.org> wrote:
> Lets remove that for now then. It is much easier to add it later if a
> use is found for it than it is to remove something that turns out to be
> pointless.
>
+1
>
> > >>
> > >> Mark
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > Stuart
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:19 PM, arjan tijms
> > ><arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com <mailto:arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com>>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> Hi,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I wrote a small blog post about the new API here:
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > >
> http://arjan-tijms.omnifaces.org/2016/04/servlet-40s-mapping-api-previewed-in.html
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I think we need to discuss the "implicit" mapping. As by my
> > >experiments,
> > >> >> Tomcat never seems to return it, even when calling a *.jsp
> page.
> > >It's
> > >> >> debatable if implicit even is a separate mapping. I mean,
> can't we
> > >have
> > >> an
> > >> >> implicit path mapping, implicit extension mapping etc? Maybe
> it's
> > >> better to
> > >> >> have an isImplicit() method on the Mapping type?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I also got some feedback regarding the getPattern() method.
> People
> > >> (also)
> > >> >> seem to want the pattern in such a way that they can use it
> right
> > >away
> > >> in
> > >> >> their code. E.g. for path mapping the pattern would now be e.g.
> > >> "/path/*",
> > >> >> but it would also be desirable to have a "/path/" returned.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Another comment concerned the Default mapping. It's now e.g.:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Default (fallback) mapping
> > >> >> http://localhost:8080/servlet4/doesnotexist
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Mapping match:DEFAULT
> > >> >> Match value:/
> > >> >> Pattern:/
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Should the match value be "/" here, or perhaps better be
> > >> "/doesnotexist"?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> What do you think?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Kind regards,
> > >> >> Arjan Tijms
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:42 AM, arjan tijms
> > ><arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com <mailto:arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com>>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Great, thanks!
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Greg Wilkins
> > ><gregw_at_webtide.com <mailto:gregw_at_webtide.com>>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> It is on the todo list.... but probably at least 2 weeks
> away.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> cheers
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On 31 March 2016 at 09:54, arjan tijms
> > <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com <mailto:arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com>>
> > >wrote:
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Greg, Stuart,
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Would it be possible for you to also implement the
> getMapping
> > >API
> > >> that
> > >> >>>>> Mark implemented for Tomcat? That may help ironing out some
> > >> potential issues
> > >> >>>>> as Mark mentioned
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Kind regards,
> > >> >>>>> Arjan Tijms
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Greg Wilkins
> > ><gregw_at_webtide.com <mailto:gregw_at_webtide.com>>
> > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> All,
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> Jetty's stable releases (9.3.x) have had PushBuilder
> support
> > >for a
> > >> few
> > >> >>>>>> months and it is actively being used by our HTTP2
> adopters. It
> > >was
> > >> this
> > >> >>>>>> usage that found the race condition issues and transient
> push
> > >issues
> > >> >>>>>> discussed elsewhere.
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> Other that that, no complaints so far. However, this is
> not
> > >> against a
> > >> >>>>>> servlet 4.0 API but rather our own packaging of the same
> API.
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> cheers
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> On 31 March 2016 at 08:38, Stuart Douglas
> > ><sdouglas_at_redhat.com <mailto:sdouglas_at_redhat.com>>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> I have initial PushBuilder support implemented in Undertow
> > >master,
> > >> >>>>>>> however it is not part of any release yet. It should be
> > >possible to
> > >> >>>>>>> use it in Wildfly by simply replacing the existing
> Undertow
> > >and
> > >> >>>>>>> Servlet API jars.
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> Stuart
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:02 PM, arjan tijms <
> > >> arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com <mailto:arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com>>
> > >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Mark Thomas
> > ><markt_at_apache.org <mailto:markt_at_apache.org>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>> Do you mean this one:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >>
> > >
> http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails|org.apache.tomcat|tomcat-servlet-api|9.0.0.M4|jar
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>> All the Tomcat 9.0.0.M4 JARs should be in Maven central
> > >along
> > >> with
> > >> >>>>>>>>> a
> > >> >>>>>>>>> full installer as well.
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> Perfect, thanks!
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> A question is how to proceed with this feature for
> other
> > >Servlet
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> containers, but that's probably best discussed at the
> > >Servlet EG
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> list.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>> The EG members should be watching here...
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> You're right, they should be.
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>> I think the first step is for other containers to
> implement
> > >the
> > >> >>>>>>>>> proposal
> > >> >>>>>>>>> so we can iron out any ambiguities in the spec and any
> > >> >>>>>>>>> implementation
> > >> >>>>>>>>> issues we didn't hit in Tomcat.
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> Sounds like a very good plan indeed. I guess Jetty and
> > >Undertow as
> > >> >>>>>>>> active
> > >> >>>>>>>> open source containers would be good initial candidates
> > >here?
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> Kind regards,
> > >> >>>>>>>> Arjan Tijms
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>> Mark
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Arjan Tijms
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Mark Thomas
> > ><markt_at_apache.org <mailto:markt_at_apache.org>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:markt_at_apache.org <mailto:markt_at_apache.org>>>
> > wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Any feedback on this?
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Mark
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> On 17/03/2016 10:39, arjan tijms wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > Hi,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> >
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > That's really great! I'll do some testing over
> the
> > >weekend
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> and let
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> you know.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> >
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > Thanks again
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> >
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > Kind regards,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > Arjan Tijms
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> >
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> >
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Mark Thomas
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> <markt_at_apache.org <mailto:markt_at_apache.org>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:markt_at_apache.org <mailto:markt_at_apache.org>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > <mailto:markt_at_apache.org
> > <mailto:markt_at_apache.org> <mailto:markt_at_apache.org
> > <mailto:markt_at_apache.org>>>>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> >
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > On 07/03/2016 22:32, arjan tijms wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > Hi,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Mark
> Thomas
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> <markt_at_apache.org <mailto:markt_at_apache.org>
> > <mailto:markt_at_apache.org <mailto:markt_at_apache.org>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:markt_at_apache.org <mailto:markt_at_apache.org>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:markt_at_apache.org <mailto:markt_at_apache.org
> >>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > <mailto:markt_at_apache.org
> > <mailto:markt_at_apache.org>
> > ><mailto:markt_at_apache.org <mailto:markt_at_apache.org>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:markt_at_apache.org <mailto:markt_at_apache.org>
> > <mailto:markt_at_apache.org <mailto:markt_at_apache.org>>>>>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > I can look at implementing this in
> Tomcat
> > >if
> > >> that
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> would
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> be any use.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > That would be a great step for sure.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > For me personally using it for Mojarra is a
> > >big use
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> case,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> and its tests
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > run primarily against GlassFish, but I
> could
> > >sure
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> build a
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> personal test
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > bed based on Tomcat (in fact, we already
> have
> > >this
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> for
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> OmniFaces ;)).
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > So if you can look at this that would be
> great
> > >:)
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> >
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > I've implemented this in 9.0.0.M4 available
> > >here:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > http://tomcat.apache.org/download-90.cgi
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> >
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > As always, feedback appreciated.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> >
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > Mark
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> >
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> >
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> --
> > >> >>>>>> Greg Wilkins <gregw_at_webtide.com
> > <mailto:gregw@webtide.com>> CTO http://webtide.com
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> --
> > >> >>>> Greg Wilkins <gregw_at_webtide.com <mailto:gregw_at_webtide.com>>
> > CTO http://webtide.com
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>