Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable

Marc, It can also be useful if you have a client that doesn't support "chunked encoding" - which is probably true for a _lot_ of scripting tools. If there is any other way to have the response not use chunked encoding, then I agree this is not needed. Do we still support HTTP/1.0 or some request h

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable

Let's be nice to each other, Remy. I want to help. My question was very specific. Why, when I check out TOMCAT_4_1_24, does it not match what's in your jakarta-tomcat-4.1.24-LE-jdk14.zip source bundle? The bugzilla #'s aren't closed, but I want to be sure these fixes are already in, and provi

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable

David Wood wrote: Speaking of jasper, I'm very sorry to interrupt again, and I know it's bad etiquette to repeat myself, but I have two patches to outstanding bugs in Jasper and I'm just asking for a little help navigating your CVS repository so I can make it easy for you to get them in. Deta

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable

Speaking of jasper, I'm very sorry to interrupt again, and I know it's bad etiquette to repeat myself, but I have two patches to outstanding bugs in Jasper and I'm just asking for a little help navigating your CVS repository so I can make it easy for you to get them in. Details here: http://w

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable

Marc Slemko wrote: On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Jan Luehe wrote: I would have expected it to include a "Content-Length" header. Would you agree? It, umh, can't do that for dynamic content without buffering the whole response since it doesn't know how long it is. Not even that does work, actually. The pro

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable

Jan Luehe wrote: I noticed that if I send a request specifying HTTP/1.0 as the protocol version, and the response exceeds the output buffer, TC returns an HTTP/1.1 response with neither a "Content-Length" nor a "Transfer-Encoding: chunked" header. I would have expected it to include a "Content-Leng

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Jan Luehe wrote: > >>It can also be useful if you have a client that doesn't support "chunked > >>encoding" - which is probably true for a _lot_ of scripting tools. > >>If there is any other way to have the response not use chunked encoding, > >>then I agree this is not needed

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable

It can also be useful if you have a client that doesn't support "chunked encoding" - which is probably true for a _lot_ of scripting tools. If there is any other way to have the response not use chunked encoding, then I agree this is not needed. Do we still support HTTP/1.0 or some request header t

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable

- Original Message - From: "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 8:41 AM Subject: Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable > Remy Maucherat wrote: > > > Bill Barker wrote

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable

Remy Maucherat wrote: > Bill Barker wrote: >>>How about making the output buffer size limit configurable? >>>(A value of "-1" could mean indefinite growth, if people know what they >>>are doing.) >> >> I also dislike the proposal, but since it's configurable, and off by >> default >> I can limit

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable

- Original Message - From: "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 12:21 AM Subject: Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable > Bill Barker wrote: >

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable

Bill Barker wrote: How about making the output buffer size limit configurable? (A value of "-1" could mean indefinite growth, if people know what they are doing.) I also dislike the proposal, but since it's configurable, and off by default I can limit myself to -0. The biggest problem I see is tha

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable

- Original Message - From: "Jan Luehe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 10:11 AM Subject: Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable > Remy, > > > Jan Lueh

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable

Remy, Jan Luehe wrote: Currently, the limit up to which the size of an org.apache.coyote.tomcat5.OutputBuffer may grow is identical to the original buffer size: public OutputBuffer(int size) { bb = new ByteChunk(size); bb.setLimit(size); ... cb = new CharChunk

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable

Jan Luehe wrote: Currently, the limit up to which the size of an org.apache.coyote.tomcat5.OutputBuffer may grow is identical to the original buffer size: public OutputBuffer(int size) { bb = new ByteChunk(size); bb.setLimit(size); ... cb = new CharChunk(size);

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Extra web.xml to declare compiled JSPs

What about using external entities? ie: http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-app_2_3.dtd"; [ ] > then, between the servlet and servlet mapping sections &jspservlet; -SMD - Original Message - From: "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Extra web.xml to declare compiled JSPs

Craig R. McClanahan wrote: > Many app servers have private deployment descriptors for "extra" > information, similar to what Remy is proposing -- indeed, one could claim > that Tomcat does this already with how we use $CATALINA_HOME/conf/web.xml > to set default behavior (well, at least until Cost

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Extra web.xml to declare compiled JSPs

On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Remy Maucherat wrote: > Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:05:26 +0100 > From: Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Tomcat Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Extra web.xml to declare compiled JSPs

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Extra web.xml to declare compiled JSPs

Costin Manolache wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: I don't know. jasper-compiler is needed only to support development use cases, it obviously shouldn't be used on production servers. We are mixing 2 very different use cases here: - development - you don't need to precompile and jasper-compiler is ne

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Extra web.xml to declare compiled JSPs

Remy Maucherat wrote: > Costin Manolache wrote: >> The main point is to _not_ hack anything, but just use the standard. >> >> If you precompile your app - and include jasper-runtime.jar in >> WEB-INF/lib - the result should work in _any_ container - the precompiled >> jsps are _just_ regular serv

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Extra web.xml to declare compiled JSPs

Remy Maucherat wrote: >> I agree that using ant replace is a hack - the right solution would be to >> read the XML with DOM, insert the elements in the right place, and save >> back ( DOM - so we don't loose comments ). Or even read it as a file, and >> use regexp. No problem if we save the origin

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Extra web.xml to declare compiled JSPs

Costin Manolache wrote: The main point is to _not_ hack anything, but just use the standard. If you precompile your app - and include jasper-runtime.jar in WEB-INF/lib - the result should work in _any_ container - the precompiled jsps are _just_ regular servlets that happen to use a lib and extend

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Extra web.xml to declare compiled JSPs

The main point is to _not_ hack anything, but just use the standard. If you precompile your app - and include jasper-runtime.jar in WEB-INF/lib - the result should work in _any_ container - the precompiled jsps are _just_ regular servlets that happen to use a lib and extend from a base class. That

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Extra web.xml to declare compiled JSPs

Could an alternate hack be to modify JspServlet to allow an additional init parameter which would be the file which contains the mapping of the precompiled jsp's? The config file could just be the web.xml snippet generated by the precompilation process. This way web.xml isn't touched and if Jas

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Extra web.xml to declare compiled JSPs

- Original Message - From: "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 3:05 AM Subject: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Extra web.xml to declare compiled JSPs > Hi, > > It is not very convinient or easy to insert the declarations fo

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Extra web.xml to declare compiled JSPs

Costin Manolache wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: Hi, It is not very convinient or easy to insert the declarations for compiled JSPs into the webapp's web.xml file. It also has the disadvantage of adding a lot of mess in the web.xml, which the user may not like. For that reason, I propose that Tomca

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Extra web.xml to declare compiled JSPs

Remy Maucherat wrote: > Hi, > > It is not very convinient or easy to insert the declarations for > compiled JSPs into the webapp's web.xml file. It also has the > disadvantage of adding a lot of mess in the web.xml, which the user may > not like. > > For that reason, I propose that Tomcat parses

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Extra web.xml to declare compiled JSPs

John Trollinger wrote: Remy, I think it would be nice to have a pre-compilier like JspC used to be. The precompile part of the jsp spec is just not that handy when trying to do builds and having ant tasks pass or fail based on the jsp and compiling jsp pages into servelts is not an option for ever

RE: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Extra web.xml to declare compiled JSPs

> -Original Message- > From: Chris Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 6:43 AM > To: Tomcat Developers List > Subject: Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Extra web.xml to declare compiled JSPs > > > > Hi Remy, > > It might be worth COPYING the origi

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Extra web.xml to declare compiled JSPs

Hi Remy, It might be worth COPYING the original web.xml at deployment time, to make a runtime-web.xml, to do what you propose, leaving the original web.xml untouched. This way, you can add the declarations for compiled JSPs, and -- as a bonus -- allow clean modification of things like init-param

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Refactored mapper

On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Patrick Luby wrote: > I really don't like this spec change either. After carefully reading the > revised wording, it still seems that spec is saying "if I can't find any > of the listed static welcome files, start looking for anything that can > serve up a response". > >

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Refactored mapper

On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote: > >>The wording in the 4th paragraph in section 9.10 of the Servlet 2.4 spec > >>may change to: > >> > >> The web server must append each welcome file in the order > >> specified in the deployment descriptor to the partial request and > >> check wh

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Refactored mapper

Remy, Remy Maucherat wrote: > It now looks doable with the standalone Tomcat. It may still be > unimplementable through Apache, though. > > My wish would be that only physical resources can be used as welcome > files, so that the spec is implementable through a native webserver. > (Quite frank

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Refactored mapper

Bob Herrmann wrote: > On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 18:38, Patrick Luby wrote: > >>Remy and Costin, >> >>I found the following draft wording that is being considered for the >>Servlet 2.4 spec. The exact wording may change, but the context should >>stay the same. Are there any unimplementable pieces in t

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Refactored mapper

On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 18:38, Patrick Luby wrote: > Remy and Costin, > > I found the following draft wording that is being considered for the > Servlet 2.4 spec. The exact wording may change, but the context should > stay the same. Are there any unimplementable pieces in this proposed > wording: >

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Refactored mapper

Bob Herrmann wrote: > On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 15:37, Remy Maucherat wrote: > [...] > >>Yes, but welcome files for non physical resources cannot be implemented >>(since you have no way of asking a servlet if it can or cannot process a >>resource). >>I'll implement something which works and which

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Refactored mapper

On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 15:37, Remy Maucherat wrote: [...] > Yes, but welcome files for non physical resources cannot be implemented > (since you have no way of asking a servlet if it can or cannot process a > resource). > I'll implement something which works and which is very close to what the

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Refactored mapper

- Original Message - From: "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 10:23 AM Subject: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Refactored mapper > Hi, > > I have been hinting at rewriting the main Catalina mapper for Tomcat 5. > > The

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Refactored mapper

Remy and Costin, I found the following draft wording that is being considered for the Servlet 2.4 spec. The exact wording may change, but the context should stay the same. Are there any unimplementable pieces in this proposed wording: The wording in the 4th paragraph in section 9.10 of the Servl

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Refactored mapper

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The current specification is not implementable for Apache ( or any other > web server ) - and it breaks every pattern that was used in the web. > > I don't know if we have any representative in the expert group or > what's the procedure that apache follows in voting for

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Validation/NamespaceAware

Big +1 ! We can have a small ant-based script that can validate a webapp - find all the XMLs and TLDs and run schema and DTD validation on it. Another nice thing we could do - if someone has the time - is adding 'Serializable' to Context and all other config objects and saving a snapshot. Then

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Refactored mapper

On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote: > Yes, but welcome files for non physical resources cannot be implemented > (since you have no way of asking a servlet if it can or cannot process a > resource). > I'll implement something which works and which is very close to what the > spec require

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Validation/NamespaceAware

Jean-francois Arcand wrote: > Hi, > > based on the mailling list feedback, I would like to propose the > following solution for the XML Parser DTD/Schema validation/namespace > aware problems: > > - Add the following attributes in server.xml under the HOST element: > > xmlValidation="false" >

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Refactored mapper

Bob Herrmann wrote: > On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 13:23, Remy Maucherat wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>I have been hinting at rewriting the main Catalina mapper for Tomcat 5. >> >>The proposal is designed to improve performance, avoid generating >>uneeded garbage String objects, and optimize the welcome files pr

Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Validation/NamespaceAware

Jean-François, I would vote +1 as long as these two HOST attributes are optional attributes. In other words, if they are missing from server.xml, both default to "false". I think that is what you are proposing but I just wanted to make sure. Patrick Jean-francois Arcand wrote: > > Hi, > > bas

RE: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)

>Thanks for the encouraged news. We've been using Tomcat in >our product >for a while now. Now, I need to set it up with support for >minimum 100K >simultaneous connection to our server side. 100K simultaneous connection ! I doubt any hardware/software/os (even on high system) could h

Re: 5.0 proposal

I can't commit to developing this (I'd love to, I have some ideas, but I don't have the time...), but hopefully it might interest someone and they can develop it... When deploying webapps as WAR files, especially generic webapps, it's not always very practical to request that an administrator ma

Re: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)

Dunlop, Aaron wrote: > Mathias, > > It would be great to see some details on your experiences with > load-balancing Tomcat, and any tricks you've come up with would be much > appreciated by the community (well, at least my part of it ;) > > We also run Tomcat 4.0 in production, behind a hardware

RE: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)

ay, June 25, 2002 11:23 AM > To: Tomcat Developers List > Subject: Re: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal) > [snip] > > Well, I know quite a few people who managed to get tomcat in > > production on a variety of sites ( including very large loads). > > I run Tomcat o

Re: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)

On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Huy Tran wrote: > Mathias, > > Thanks for the encouraged news. We've been using Tomcat in our product > for a while now. Now, I need to set it up with support for minimum 100K > simultaneous connection to our server side. If you could share some of > your knowledge how

Re: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)

Mathias, Thanks for the encouraged news. We've been using Tomcat in our product for a while now. Now, I need to set it up with support for minimum 100K simultaneous connection to our server side. If you could share some of your knowledge how you did it with your site, it would be tremendous

Re: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote: > > > >> Pier could you detail what should be a Tomcat HA, and how > > >> it could fit in TC 5.0 proposal ? > > > > > >As far as I can remember it was voted -1... > > > > What about TC 5.0 with HA capability ? > > TC5.0 will h

Re: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote: > > Pier could you detail what should be a Tomcat HA, and how it could fit in TC 5.0 proposal ? >>> >>>As far as I can remember it was voted -1... >> >>What about TC 5.0 with HA capability ? > > > TC5.0 will have a 'hig

RE: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)

, with the modules that Pier doesn't use left out ? Costin > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 1:07 PM > To: Tomcat Developers List > Subject: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0

Re: 5.0 proposal

I'm interested in this Tomcat HA also. If you have a plan, please send it out. I'm willing to help. GOMEZ Henri wrote: >>>As somebody who also intends to use Tomcat in production (around 10 >>>different sites with a reasonable load, maybe 1/4 of vnunet) >>> >>> >>this would be >> >

Re: 5.0 proposal

- Original Message - From: "Pier Fumagalli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 3:36 PM Subject: Re: 5.0 proposal > Arshad Mahmood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > +100! >

RE: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)

On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, John Trollinger wrote: > Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 13:19:40 -0400 > From: John Trollinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: 'Tomcat Developers List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sub

RE: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)

build the parts of tomcat that you need with out all the overhead. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 1:07 PM To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal) On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote

Re: 5.0 proposal

On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: > > http://nagoya.apache.org/svn/jakarta-tomcat-ha/ > > If you guys don't want to see it associated with the Apache name, just let > me know and I will move it off on my (Betaversion or VNU) servers. If possible, please also change the name - unless A

Re: 5.0 proposal

GOMEZ Henri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Pier could you detail what should be a Tomcat HA, and how >>> it could fit in TC 5.0 proposal ? >> >> As far as I can remember it was voted -1... > > What about TC 5.0 with HA capability ? Well... It's a matter of code... Given that there is not one l

HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)

On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote: > >> Pier could you detail what should be a Tomcat HA, and how > >> it could fit in TC 5.0 proposal ? > > > >As far as I can remember it was voted -1... > > What about TC 5.0 with HA capability ? TC5.0 will have a 'higher availability' then 4.1 which is b

RE: 5.0 proposal

>> Pier could you detail what should be a Tomcat HA, and how >> it could fit in TC 5.0 proposal ? > >As far as I can remember it was voted -1... What about TC 5.0 with HA capability ? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: 5.0 proposal

GOMEZ Henri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> As somebody who also intends to use Tomcat in production (around 10 >>> different sites with a reasonable load, maybe 1/4 of vnunet) >> this would be >>> very helpful to me. >>> >>> You mentioned a couple of specific things you would like to >> do. Woul

Re: random BOUND socket (was Re: 5.0 proposal).

GOMEZ Henri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We add a timeout features in mod_jk 1.2.0 to close > sockets after some time of inactivity I don't think it's JK, as I don't use it. Must be something somewhere else. Pier -- [Perl] combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion of dif

RE: 5.0 proposal

>> As somebody who also intends to use Tomcat in production (around 10 >> different sites with a reasonable load, maybe 1/4 of vnunet) >this would be >> very helpful to me. >> >> You mentioned a couple of specific things you would like to >do. Would it be >> possible for you elaborate a little

RE: random BOUND socket (was Re: 5.0 proposal).

80E6 >-Original Message- >From: Pier Fumagalli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 4:41 PM >To: Tomcat Developers List >Subject: Re: random BOUND socket (was Re: 5.0 proposal). > > >jean-frederic clere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >

Re: random BOUND socket (was Re: 5.0 proposal).

jean-frederic clere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do see the following on my Linux: > +++ > tcp0 0 :::127.0.0:http-alt :::127.0.0.1:32893 TIME_WAIT > tcp0 0 :::127.0.0.1:32892 :::127.0.0.1:8005 TIME_WAIT > tcp0 0 :::127.0.0.1:32894

Re: 5.0 proposal

Arshad Mahmood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +100! > > As somebody who also intends to use Tomcat in production (around 10 > different sites with a reasonable load, maybe 1/4 of vnunet) this would be > very helpful to me. > > You mentioned a couple of specific things you would like to do. Would

random BOUND socket (was Re: 5.0 proposal).

Remy Maucherat wrote: > Pier Fumagalli wrote: > >> Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> I don't see that much to remove. I assume JNDI is the ever popular >>> target, but I didn't notice it causing major problems (either >>> performance or reliability), so I'd say it's not worth it

RE: 5.0 proposal

02 09:45 To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: Re: 5.0 proposal Steven Wood wrote: > Hi all, > > I was interested to read the differing opinions on 5.0 or not, and I was > interested to hear Pier say that he did not think tomcat was an option in a > production system. We have been usi

RE: 5.0 proposal

>From: Steven Wood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 10:41 AM >To: 'Tomcat Developers List' >Subject: RE: 5.0 proposal > > >Hi all, > >I was interested to read the differing opinions on 5.0 or not, >and I was >interested to he

Re: 5.0 proposal

Steven Wood wrote: > Hi all, > > I was interested to read the differing opinions on 5.0 or not, and I was > interested to hear Pier say that he did not think tomcat was an option in a > production system. We have been using tomcat 3.2.3 (an out of date version > I know) and while it performs it

RE: 5.0 proposal

use (I think) to me though :-) -Original Message- From: Arshad Mahmood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 25 June 2002 09:12 To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: Re: 5.0 proposal - Original Message - From: "Pier Fumagalli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Develope

Re: 5.0 proposal

Pier Fumagalli wrote: > Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>I don't see that much to remove. I assume JNDI is the ever popular >>target, but I didn't notice it causing major problems (either >>performance or reliability), so I'd say it's not worth it. > > > Actually, I have a compl

Re: 5.0 proposal

- Original Message - From: "Pier Fumagalli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 9:49 PM Subject: Re: 5.0 proposal > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon,

Re: 5.0 proposal

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Glenn Nielsen wrote: > +1 to add a Tomcat specific performance testing/benchmark repository. > > Perhaps it would be best if it were in its own repository, > jakarta-tomcat-benchmark ? I will help as I have time. I think we have 3 +1s and one -1 - maybe Remy can change his

RE: 5.0 proposal

> To: Tomcat Developers List > Subject: Re: 5.0 proposal > > > Remy Maucherat wrote: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > It seems we have 3 -1 votes so far. While majority is required, I > > > think we all agree that getting everyone ( reasonable ) &g

Re: 5.0 proposal

Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't see that much to remove. I assume JNDI is the ever popular > target, but I didn't notice it causing major problems (either > performance or reliability), so I'd say it's not worth it. Actually, I have a complaint... 4.1.3 tries to write into my

Re: 5.0 proposal

> > BTW: Did not want to take part on the nice flamaewar started for the > occasion of the 5.0 proposal, was so nice, not very bloody for my taste, > but nice :)) > Yeah, it's just not the same without Jon and Paulo. ;-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional c

Re: 5.0 proposal

Pier Fumagalli wrote: > I can't be a RM for 4.0.4 because I would simply remove 70% of the code, and > kiddies would start crying their butts off because they don't have the > manager application, or JSP support :) > > But if anyone is interested I'd like to explore the opportunity of a > Tomcat-

Re: 5.0 proposal

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: > >> I can't be a RM for 4.0.4 because I would simply remove 70% of the code, and >> kiddies would start crying their butts off because they don't have the >> manager application, or JSP support :) > > I d

Re: 5.0 proposal

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: > I can't be a RM for 4.0.4 because I would simply remove 70% of the code, and > kiddies would start crying their butts off because they don't have the > manager application, or JSP support :) I don't think you can remove JSP support - tomcat would no l

RE: 5.0 proposal

> But if anyone is interested I'd like to explore the opportunity of a > Tomcat-HA (high-availability or hard-edition), based on 4.0 > without the > "crap" in there, and straightening out the request-response model... +1000 Please do it, you could call it "Road-Runner" :) BTW: Did not want

Re: 5.0 proposal

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: > >> That's why counts where not right on my side of the border... I don't recall >> vetoing the proposal... I just complained vehemently that I'd prefer to see >> 4.0 out of the door and stable rather than

Re: 5.0 proposal

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: > That's why counts where not right on my side of the border... I don't recall > vetoing the proposal... I just complained vehemently that I'd prefer to see > 4.0 out of the door and stable rather than a 4.1 and a 5.0... 4.0 is out of door - the release

Re: 5.0 proposal

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: > >> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> It seems we have 3 -1 votes so far. >> >> For completeness's sake, who are the 3 -1s? Not all the members of this list >> have the entire day to

Re: 5.0 proposal

> > Watchdog is an official TCK Actually, Watchdog is not an official TCK (just wanted to make this clear). It's nothing more than a test suite that uses the same test source. However, I do agree that performance analysis in not the goal of Watchdog. -rl -- To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: 5.0 proposal

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote: > > > However, it sounds generic, and not at all dependent on Tomcat, so > > that's why I think it would be a lot better in the commons. > > Maybe watchdog would be a better place for it. > Watchdog is an official TCK, so

Re: 5.0 proposal

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It seems we have 3 -1 votes so far. > > For completeness's sake, who are the 3 -1s? Not all the members of this list > have the entire day to read all that happens around here... Glenn, Christophe

Re: 5.0 proposal

"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems we have 3 -1 votes so far. For completeness's sake, who are the 3 -1s? Not all the members of this list have the entire day to read all that happens around here... Pier -- [Perl] combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a bill

Re: 5.0 proposal

Remy Maucherat wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> It seems we have 3 -1 votes so far. While majority is required, I think >> we all agree that getting everyone ( reasonable ) involved and >> comfortable >> with the proposal is very important ( and one of the goals of 5.0 ). > > > +1. > >

Re: 5.0 proposal

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote: > +1 to start a new commons subproject. > If everyone else wants to see the bench webapp here, then I'll remove my > -1. However, it sounds generic, and not at all dependent on Tomcat, so > that's why I think it would be a lot better in the commons. M

Re: 5.0 proposal

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It seems we have 3 -1 votes so far. While majority is required, I think > we all agree that getting everyone ( reasonable ) involved and comfortable > with the proposal is very important ( and one of the goals of 5.0 ). +1. > Christopher: I think we should add your req