Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[jetty-users] Is there a reason for not including a setContainer on Server?

I'm setting up Jetty in a Spring context. First note - the docs are out of date with old package references and use of deprecated classes (WebAppDeployer). Maybe I'll be in a position to update them when I get through it all.

For now I'm wrappering Jetty in my own bean because there are at least 2 non-bean friendly classes. One is fixed (that was the quickest bug fix I ever saw, amazing, just hours after I posted it). The other I've noted (so far...) is that the deployment manager needs to be added to the Server Container via a call to Server.addBean(...).

Now there's a Server.getContainer(...) method, but no setter for the same. If there were a setter I could construct the containter as a bean and inject it to Server (this would also require that Container be re-wired as a bean or at least offer a constructor option to initialize with a list of Objects).

Perhaps following bean standards isn't a priority, not sure, but just thought I'd pose the thoughts  (maybe I'm off base somewhere that someone will note). As is I can't find a good way to cleanly launch Jetty 7.x under Spring without a wrapper (unless I use JavaConfig possibly, but then a wrapper just seems to be easier).


Back to the top