On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Yes but if it runs in a JavaEE container (J2EE doesn't exist anymore > if i'm not mistaken) or at least a servlet container what is the > minimum required? > A beer or two ... or more are needed here to resolve this dispute .... :) > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2013/10/29 Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>: > > On 29/10/2013 13:24, Niki Dokovski wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> On 29/10/2013 13:01, Niki Dokovski wrote: > >>>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 29/10/2013 12:41, Niki Dokovski wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> WebSocket container can be used in Java SE env only but for a > standard > >>>>> JSR > >>>>>> 356 compliance implementation an existing servlet container is > needed. > >>>>> > >>>>> No it is not. > >>>>> > >>>>>> Basically you are correct if you don't refer to JSR 356. But my > >>> question > >>>>>> was related to improving the spec, triggered by Romain's question. > >>>>> > >>>>> Wrong again. > >>>>> > >>>>> You can implement a specification compliant JSR 356 server container > >>>>> without implementing any other J2EE specs. This was an explicit > design > >>>>> decision made by the JSR 356 EG and explains, for example, why the > >>>>> HttpSession instance is passed as Object rather than as > >>>>> javax.servlet.http.HttpSession. > >>>>> > >>>>> I still do not see where, how or why there is a specification issue > >>> here. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> The simple fact that you cannot pass the TCK, hence claim > compatibility > >>>> proves the other way. > >>> > >>> If the TCK requires that the WebSocket implementation be part of a J2EE > >>> container then that is an issue with the TCK. I only had access to a > >>> draft of the TCK and there were much more fundamental issues with it at > >>> that stage. > >>> > >> > >> IMHO Those fundamental issues still exist then. Which still lead to a > need > >> of clarity on EG, which was my original question. :) > > > > I still don't see the need. Section 6.3 makes it very clear it is not > > required to run in a J2EE container. > > > > Mark > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > >
