DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45413] Contribution of Bayeux implementation for Tomcat

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45413 Filip Hanik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added URL|http://svn.hanik.com/svn/rep|http://svn.hanik.

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45413] New: Contribution of Bayeux implementation for Tomcat

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45413 Summary: Contribution of Bayeux implementation for Tomcat Product: Tomcat 6 Version: 6.0.16 Platform: All URL: http://svn.hanik.com/svn/repos/tomcat-bayeux OS/Version: All

Re: Bayeux implementation

comet protocol. The current different Async/comet server API's make it very strong to start for most programmers. I review the Jetty Bayeux implementation and find it very useful. OK, really the current "spec doc" is strange, but it's good enough to start discussions. Please

Re: Bayeux implementation

Peter Rossbach wrote: OK, really the current "spec doc" is strange, but it's good enough to start discussions. Please, let us start talks with other Bayeux folks. I don't like the syntax much more than the "spec doc" (lol, not ready yet for the IETF, I guess), but it's an implementation deta

Re: Bayeux implementation

Peter Rossbach wrote: Hi Filip, Great, I think it is a good time to start talking about Bayeux /dojo as a standard comet protocol. The current different Async/comet server API's make it very strong to start for most programmers. I review the Jetty Bayeux implementation and find it

Re: Bayeux implementation

Hi Filip, Great, I think it is a good time to start talking about Bayeux /dojo as a standard comet protocol. The current different Async/comet server API's make it very strong to start for most programmers. I review the Jetty Bayeux implementation and find it very useful. OK, reall

Re: Bayeux implementation

Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: If the spec is bad, then its another reason for us to join in, but the fact that there is a client support, speaks for itself. Specifically, the syntax looks funny to me, and the spec document is bad (that's what I meant with "the spec is bad"). Implementing it d

Re: Bayeux implementation

Remy Maucherat wrote: Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: yo, I was gonna create a Bayeux implementation for Tomcat, I am thinking it might be good for us to work with the Jetty and Glassfish folks to use the same org.dojox interfaces. I don't like dependencies ;) I am not interested in wo

Re: Bayeux implementation

Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: yo, I was gonna create a Bayeux implementation for Tomcat, I am thinking it might be good for us to work with the Jetty and Glassfish folks to use the same org.dojox interfaces. I don't like dependencies ;) I am not interested in working with these two pro

Re: Bayeux implementation

Yoav Shapira wrote: Hey, On 6/7/07, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: yo, I was gonna create a Bayeux implementation for Tomcat, I am thinking it might be good for us to work with the Jetty and Glassfish folks to use the same org.dojox interfaces. I like the idea! Qu

Re: Bayeux implementation

Hey, On 6/7/07, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: yo, I was gonna create a Bayeux implementation for Tomcat, I am thinking it might be good for us to work with the Jetty and Glassfish folks to use the same org.dojox interfaces. I like the idea! Question: Where shoul

Bayeux implementation

yo, I was gonna create a Bayeux implementation for Tomcat, I am thinking it might be good for us to work with the Jetty and Glassfish folks to use the same org.dojox interfaces. Question: Where should I do this, sandbox or trunk? Why Bayeux? Cause there is a good client support through the