"tfennelly" wrote : OK, so I implemented a bit of this so as we can have something concrete to discuss. It's not in any way complete and there are things in it that I plan on refactoring (e.g. removing the ability to reference a web.xml/jboss-web.xml, as requested), as well as there being bits which are not yet implemented at all. I hope this means that you are keeping the set of changes as small as possible, remember that we are not into creating wonderful new frameworks here. We have two use cases for 4.x and that is it. "tfennelly" wrote : Also, Kev has an issue with using the mep to decide whether or not a response is sent back from a Http Gateway. Plan on discussing that separately. Kev has an issue in basing code on broken assumptions, but this has already been discussed to death. What else do you feel needs to be discussed? "tfennelly" wrote : The main thing I wanted to look at was the common codebase for EBWS and the new HttpGateway. I have implemented the bones of a "WebModel" concept that gets built up at deploy time and is then used to construct a single war file for the .esb deployment. | | See SVN: http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/labs/labs/jbossesb/workspace/tfennelly/htt... | | So the basic idea is simple... the Deployer: | 1. Creates an instance of WebDeploymentArchive. (Implemented) | 2. Calls EBWS specific code for it to add it's servlets etc to the model. (Not implemented). | 3. Calls HttpGateway specific code for it to add servlets etc to the model. (Implemented) | 4. Creates and deploys the war sub deployment. (Implemented) I hope this is the minimalist approach :) "tfennelly" wrote : Note that where I say "Implemented"... I'm not saying that part is complete and will not change!!! Really just saying "there's something there" for that part of the equation ;) | | The base context is based .esb name (as requested). | | For the Http Gateway, it's currently prefixing the urlPattern with the associated http provider bus name (and not hardcoded "http", as requested). But you are going to change this to what was requested, right? "tfennelly" wrote : This seem OK so far? Please remember that this is supposed to be as small an impact as is possible for the current codebase, we will only have two use cases for 4.x. We need to retain some ability to move fixes between the current platform branches and future ones. Kev View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4246138#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...