Search |
||
Servlet 3.0 - from the sourcePosted by mode on December 2, 2008 at 6:13 PM PST
Since the Early draft of the specification for Servlet 3.0 (JSR 315) the expert group has been working on refining and improving the specificaiton in a couple of areas - Ease of Development (EoD), pluggability and asynchronous support. Below is a description of things that are in the soon to be available public review to enable each of these features.
An early access implementation of some of the features are available in the GlassFish nightly build. For further discussion please post your questions about the implementation to webtier@glassfish.dev.java.net Jetty 7 pre-release also has some of the features implemented for those interested. Look for more blogs about these features from my colleagues Shing Wai and Jan Luehe on specifics of some of the implementation. »
Related Topics >>
Java Enterprise Comments
Comments are listed in date ascending order (oldest first)
Submitted by musketyr85 on Wed, 2008-12-03 00:46.
Just one simple question :) What will be servlets good for since JAX-RS makes easier lot of servlet use cases? It looks like it will become lowend technology for framework creators only just like JDBC.
Submitted by mode on Wed, 2008-12-03 01:56.
musketyr85 - A LOT of frameworks build on the web container. JAX-RS also builds on the servlet container as one of the containers in the Java EE platform. So adding functionality to the underlying container will enable frameworks which will make developers lives easier.
- Rajiv
Submitted by musketyr85 on Wed, 2008-12-03 03:51.
Sure. That are frameworks creators who will use servlets, but my queston was more on ordinal developers who don't write any frameworks.
I was just curious whether you or your colleagues know some use cases where end user programmer would say "Hey, this cannot be done so easy with JAX-RS let's do it with old good servlet!"
Submitted by netsql on Wed, 2008-12-03 09:56.
is startAsync to be used for comet a/ the asyncContext?
Not resume ?
Is there a draft document to look over?
Sample code?
Submitted by mwessendorf on Thu, 2008-12-04 05:48.
Are you guys planing to (finally) add a unified api/framework for uploads? Today... every damn web framework does it on its own... Please fix that
Submitted by gallagher_niall on Thu, 2008-12-04 06:56.
Regarding the start async proposal, I think this is a much better concept than start resume. I have written HTTP server which uses a similar concept, however asynchronous processing is transparent from the outset.
http://www.simpleframework.org/
This form of processing also opens up the servlet container to parallelize requests on the same pipeline. As it allows HTTP request completion to drive dispatch of the next request, rather than service completion, and without any greater buffering demands. Performance is also much better than the conventional Servlet service model.
http://www.simpleframework.org/performance/comparison.php
Submitted by mode on Thu, 2008-12-04 11:48.
musketyr85: I recently was at a JUG and queriied the attendees to see how many people are still writing servlets and was quite surprised to see the number. However to answer your question - for JAX-RS to be able to support async for example one way it could do it is via using the underlying functionality in the container. If JAX-RS does not have any support for async (as is the case today) then what does a developer do?
Submitted by mode on Thu, 2008-12-04 11:49.
netsql: I will soon be writing an entry describing the async API. A lot of people have asked me the same question as you.
Submitted by mode on Thu, 2008-12-04 11:50.
mwessendorf: It is still in the plan. We hope to have it in the proposed final draft of the spec.
Submitted by whartung on Thu, 2008-12-04 15:03.
Actually, the real question is what incremental features could be added to the base Servlet API so that a developer could choose "raw" servlets instead of any framework whatsoever?
For example, the HTTP Method and URL mapping feature of JAX-RS, but, say, without the content-type matching and conversion features.
Submitted by kito75 on Mon, 2008-12-08 16:59.
So, it looks like we're still left without a usable security feature?
Submitted by mode on Mon, 2008-12-08 17:45.
kito75: Security enhancements are planned for the next release. However can you send me email to be more specific about "a usable security feature"?
|
||
|
|