Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : benchmarks

I'm sorry for jumping in, but I couldn't help throwing in some performance notes from one of our own servers -- Ultra10, Solaris 7, 512 Meg RAM, running Tomcat 3.3.1 with Apache 1.3.x with ssl and a huge mod_rewrite section. Also running a MySQL database and a RealServer with 60 simultaneous

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

"Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Note that nobody (including me) is arguing about whether some refactoring > is necessary -- it obviously is. I'll forward my list of favorite targets > in due course. But I care for Tomcat users of all types, who need > different sets of featur

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: > > > > Tomcat SHOULD be suited for reliability, scalabitity and performance, > > and that's why I found Tomcat 5.0 proposal so important. > > Craig said the opposite... > Not true at all. I have no problem with supporting the "large server / million

RE: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

>> Excuse me Pier, but when I see that you, an OSS developper, >> long time Apache Member, one of the original JServ author >> and member of the Tomcat 4.x development team member use at >> works ServletExecAS/4.1 (http://uptime.netcraft.com/) >> instead of any of products he developped, he make m

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

"GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Bah... If you guys stop being ridiculous and come up with a >> proposal that is >> something more than a couple of buzzwords, I'll shut up... >> (Hint Hint) :) > > Excuse me Pier, but when I see that you, an OSS developper, > long time Apache Member, o

RE: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : benchmarks

>Ok... Now you said (correct me if I'm wrong), that your site >has 5000/1 >servlets request per day, right? My setup is for more than ONE clients, many clients, many JVM, many tomcats, but with an average of 5000/1 reqs by client site by days. >And now you say that to handle that load,

RE: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

>Bah... If you guys stop being ridiculous and come up with a >proposal that is >something more than a couple of buzzwords, I'll shut up... >(Hint Hint) :) Excuse me Pier, but when I see that you, an OSS developper, long time Apache Member, one of the original JServ author and member of the Tomc

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : benchmarks

"GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If your site is built up by "HelloWorldExample" servlets, then, ok, I'm >> going to shut up about TC's reliability in production environments.. > > Ok, I must admin, we're also using snoop.jsp and dates.jsp ;) That's so great... >> (note: http://www.

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

Pier Fumagalli wrote: > "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>We did, and apparently, there are 3 people disagreeing with the new >>proposal (one of whom because he just doesn't care, to quote his own words). > > > I don't care about a mediocre servlet engine aimed to "small-to-med

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

"Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We did, and apparently, there are 3 people disagreeing with the new > proposal (one of whom because he just doesn't care, to quote his own words). I don't care about a mediocre servlet engine aimed to "small-to-medium scale websites that don't get 8

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

Pier Fumagalli wrote: > "GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>Craig, be real... Tomcat, despite the beautiful design we have >>>for Catalina, >>>and we have to give you KUDOS for that, is not _yet_ ready to >>>be used in >>>production... It simply doesn't work, it doesn't deliver the s

RE: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : benchmarks

>> So I think that both Tomcats should be considered stable. > >My officemates thank you for the 5 minutes of hysterical >laughter you gave >to us in this bright radiant sunny morning in London... Much >appreciated.. It was a pleasure ;) >If your site is built up by "HelloWorldExample" servlet

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : benchmarks

"GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I make extensive tests on Tomcat 3.3.1/4.0.4, http connectors > and mod_jk 1.2.0/Apache 1.3/2.0. > > BTW, I could say that I launch nigthly tests involving 10 millions > calls to HelloWorldExample servlets on both Tomcats and never got > a single error.

RE: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

>Good... Prove it to me. Come up with a proposal of some >friggin' sort... >FWIW even 4.2.x doesn't address any of my concerns, and it's >not even out >working yet... Talking about 5.0 is a little bit "premature" maybe? > >But that's my vision... The vision of an old fart who has been >around f

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

"GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Craig, be real... Tomcat, despite the beautiful design we have >> for Catalina, >> and we have to give you KUDOS for that, is not _yet_ ready to >> be used in >> production... It simply doesn't work, it doesn't deliver the same >> performance and reliab

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

Glenn Nielsen wrote: > "Craig R. McClanahan" wrote: > >>On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Glenn Nielsen wrote: >> >> >>>[snip] >>>Providing a great java web server is not a goal of Tomcat. >>>[snip] >> >>I didn't know cats could talk :-). >> >>I didn't know that Glenn, or Pier, or any single developer, speaks

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : benchmarks

Glenn Nielsen wrote: > +1 Well stated Christopher. Then please, both of you start a project in the commons to do that. This is useful, but definitely outside of the scope of the Tomcat project. Again, -1 for having that part of the Tomcat project. +1 to post benchmark results once in a while if

RE: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : benchmarks

>Not _that_ obvious... Do we have _NUMBERS_ ??? And not just >numbers in terms >of reqs/sec, but also in comparison to a long-run test with % >of CPU time >used, and IO usage (uptime)... > >> It is impossible ( IMHO ) to put some real number on >> that ( or on 'cleaner code' or 'better community

RE: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

>Craig... One question: have you ever worked on a site that >ONLY IN SERVLET >REQUESTS does something like 10 MILLIONS requests a day (and >you have to be >called out at 3 AM on a Saturday morning because things don't work?) Pier, I also works in production environment and make my best to avoid

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : benchmarks

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it's obvious that tomcat3.3 has 'improved performance' > over 3.2, and 4.1 has 'improved performance' over 4.0. > I don't think anyone can argue with that, and we don't > have any test suite to prove it. Not _that_ obvious... Do we have _NUM

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : benchmarks

Christopher K. St. John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Profiling tools and internal benchmarks answer different > questions. You don't use a profiling tool instead of a > benchmark, you use it with a benchmark. +1 :) Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additio

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Glenn Nielsen wrote: > I thought the ASF was about creating a community (meritocracy) where > proposals, ideas, directions, and code can be discussed openly and the > validity of them could be challenged. So that only the best ideas rise That's exactly what we are trying

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Bill Barker wrote: > So far, the only concrete suggestion is Christopher's benchmark suite. I > personally think that it's a better fit with, say, Cactus (and if the > proposal included bundling Cactus with Tomcat, I'm guessing that he'd have > the Cactus group falling all

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : benchmarks

Ok, Christopher - we're not stupid engineers in need for an intro course on performance. I think it's obvious that tomcat3.3 has 'improved performance' over 3.2, and 4.1 has 'improved performance' over 4.0. I don't think anyone can argue with that, and we don't have any test suite to prove it.

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

> > I thought the ASF was about creating a community (meritocracy) where > proposals, ideas, directions, and code can be discussed openly and the > validity of them could be challenged. So that only the best ideas rise > to the top. When did this get redefined to mean selfish? > > I see the prop

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : benchmarks

Good proposal goals provide a way to test if the goal has been achieved and a way to argue if the goal is worthwhile. "Improve performance" as a goal is both untestable and impossible to argue with, so it's a badly stated goal. Remy Maucherat wrote: > > To evaluate code, I strongly recommend

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Craig R. McClanahan wrote: > Tomcat can meet all of those needs, but only if the developers are > unselfish enough to understand that "I don't need that feature" does *not* > mean "it should not be there at all". Such selfishness has not +1 I think this should be somehow

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

"Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Glenn Nielsen wrote: > > >> [snip] >> Providing a great java web server is not a goal of Tomcat. >> [snip] > > I didn't know cats could talk :-). > > I didn't know that Glenn, or Pier, or any single developer, speaks for t

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Glenn Nielsen wrote: > [snip] > Providing a great java web server is not a goal of Tomcat. > [snip] I didn't know cats could talk :-). I didn't know that Glenn, or Pier, or any single developer, speaks for the entire Tomcat developer community. This statement (a great j

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

"Glenn Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the current proposal is too vague. It needs to be broken out > into greater detail. You need to ask the tomcat developer community > what new features they think are needed, what code smells bad enough > to need refactoring, and what areas of

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Did you look at JK 2 at all ? >> >> Yes, I did. And in my opinion, it sucks. But my spare cycles are limited to > > :-) > > Allways nice to hear an objective and argumented opinion from Pier. > Who can beat the "Because I say so" argument ?

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

Pier Fumagalli wrote: > "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Peace Pier. I think there's a misunderstanding ;-) >>Working as well as possible with Apache is my objective. >>Providing a great Java web server is also my objective. > > > To some extents, these two objectives contradict eac

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: > That would be a waste of time and CPU resources... You're looking in the > wrong direction... To get performance, and reliability, all you have to do > is simplify the code, removing layer after layer... Not adding them... Have you read the proposal ?

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

"Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Working as well as possible with Apache is my objective. > Providing a great Java web server is also my objective. To some extents, these two objectives contradict each other. You can see this already in the design of Catalina, and in the hacks that

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

Pier Fumagalli wrote: > "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Pier Fumagalli wrote: >> >> >>>As far as I would like to see WARP and its future development, it'll >>>probably end up following a different container architecture. The >>>extenization of the HTTP stack from the core of the c

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

Glenn Nielsen wrote: > -1 At this time for starting work on Tomcat 5 (jakarta-tomcat-5) > > This is not a good time to start work on Tomcat 5 based on the > proposal as put forward for the following reasons: > > 1. There are alot of new features and changes in Tomcat 4.1. > These have not b

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : benchmarks

Christopher K. St. John wrote: > Bill Barker wrote: > >>I agree with Remy >>that any single benchmark suite isn't going to tell you how your particular >>web-app will perform. >> > > > Bill, > > Actually, I agree, but this isn't what that is :-) > > There's a difference between: > > a)

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : benchmarks

"Bill Barker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with Remy that any single benchmark suite isn't going to tell you how > your particular web-app will perform. For sure in a web-app there are way too many variables to consider... The only thing, though, that we have to measure is not "that" dif

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

"Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pier Fumagalli wrote: > >> As far as I would like to see WARP and its future development, it'll >> probably end up following a different container architecture. The >> extenization of the HTTP stack from the core of the container brings some >> advanta

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : benchmarks

- Original Message - From: "Christopher K. St. John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 6:36 AM Subject: Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : benchmarks > Bill Barker wrote: > > > > I agree with Remy > >

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

"Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Christopher K. St. John wrote: > >> Tomcat 5 isn't some sort of generic server framework, it's >> the reference implementation for the 2.4 spec. The spec is >> central. >> > > Servlet 2.4 will probably go to public

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #2 Tradeoffs

"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have no idea what number to put in the proposal. As fast as > 3.3 ? Faster than resin ? It is not _that_ hard... Pier (who will comment about Tomcat 5 in August) -- [Perl] combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion of differe

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

- Original Message - From: "Glenn Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 7:22 AM Subject: Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 > -1 At this time for starting work on Tomcat 5 (ja

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Christopher K. St. John wrote: > Tomcat 5 isn't some sort of generic server framework, it's > the reference implementation for the 2.4 spec. The spec is > central. > Servlet 2.4 will probably go to public draft pretty soon, so you'll be able to see for yourself -- but I

RE: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

y Maucherat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 5:07 PM > To: Tomcat Developers List > Subject: Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 > > > Pier Fumagalli wrote: > > "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : benchmarks

Bill Barker wrote: > > I agree with Remy > that any single benchmark suite isn't going to tell you how your particular > web-app will perform. > Bill, Actually, I agree, but this isn't what that is :-) There's a difference between: a) Benchmarks for users that compare the performance of

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #3 Straw Man

Bill Barker wrote: > Firstly, let me add my +1 to the proposal. tomcat-dev could use more > warm-and-fuzzies. ;-) Thanks :) >>I have been following the discussion regarding the Tomcat 5 proposal. >> >>I have some general comments. >> >>Improve Performance Goal: >> >>I agree with Chritopher that

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #3 Straw Man

Firstly, let me add my +1 to the proposal. tomcat-dev could use more warm-and-fuzzies. ;-) - Original Message - From: "Glenn Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 7:31 PM Subject: Re: Pr

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #3 Straw Man

Glenn Nielsen wrote: > > Proposal in General: > > The proposal is pretty vague on details. I have seen a number of > replies stating "That's an implementation detail". I for one would > like to see the proposal broken out into much more detail before > work starts. Perhaps we should take a st

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : JMX utils

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Christopher K. St. John wrote: > Hmm, I don't get it. Might be me not understanding JMX > well enough (need to buy that darned book), but: :-) > Model MBeans are Dynamic MBeans. The can set themselves > up automatically using introspection, but you end > up not having a

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : JMX utils

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I don't think model mbeans can be used for some of the > stuff that I want ( in jk ), and I think it is much easier to > use the automatic introspection based dynamic mbeans. > Hmm, I don't get it. Might be me not understanding JMX well enough (need to buy that darn

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #3 Straw Man

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Christopher K. St. John wrote: > > The beauty about JMX is that you don't have to merge anything. > > > > It's obviously a bit silly to have part of Tomcat 5 > using one set of utilities for JXM, and part using > something else. It definitely makes the code harder > to u

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #3 Straw Man

Remy Maucherat wrote: > > > - Details about how the existing Catalina JXM management > >interfaces will be merged with Coyote JXM management > >code. Or at least an acknowledgement that it's an issue. > > The beauty about JMX is that you don't have to merge anything. > It's obviously

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #3 Straw Man

Christopher K. St. John wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>I can tell I spent >>few months with almost daily runs in OptimizeIt and >>several 'ab' per day. >> > > > Hold on. It sounds like you think I'm saying you > didn't do your homework. I'm not saying you don't > know this stuff, I'm sa

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

+1 We'll work making "how make tighers links between Avalon and TC 5.0". It makes perfect sense :-) GOMEZ Henri wrote: > I hope that Tomcat 5.0 proposal draft won't turn in > a battle or flame war between Tomcat and Avalon commiters. > > Why ? > > Because we had just too many flams wars in

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #3 Straw Man

Christopher K. St. John wrote: > Remy Maucherat wrote: > >>> - Tomcat 5 is Tomcat 4 with lots of cleanup work and >>> modifications for whatever the 2.4 spec comes up >>> with. There are no major architectural changes. OTOH, >>> the 2.4 spec could be bizarre, in which case all bets >>> ar

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #3 Straw Man

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Christopher K. St. John wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > I can tell I spent > > few months with almost daily runs in OptimizeIt and > > several 'ab' per day. > > > > Hold on. It sounds like you think I'm saying you > didn't do your homework. I'm not saying you

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #3 Straw Man

Remy Maucherat wrote: > > > - Tomcat 5 is Tomcat 4 with lots of cleanup work and > >modifications for whatever the 2.4 spec comes up > >with. There are no major architectural changes. OTOH, > >the 2.4 spec could be bizarre, in which case all bets > >are off :-) > > My proposal i

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #3 Straw Man

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote: > BTW, this is off-topic, but I have an OptimizeIt question: how do you > run it with Hotspot (on Windows) ? Everytime I tried, it crashed and/or > the profiling didn't work. So I've been using it with the classic VM, > but this obviously can change t

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #3 Straw Man

Christopher K. St. John wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>If you can clarify your concerns - do you disagree with Coyote >>entirely ( and why ), is it something missing that you want >>added or something that is there and you feel shouldn't ? >> > > > Fair enough. I think part of the probl

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #3 Straw Man

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Christopher K. St. John wrote: > > >> Fair enough. I think part of the problem is that one >>of the primary goals of the proposal appears to be to >>find common ground between the Tomcat 3 and Tomcat 4 >>camps. I have the sneaking suspicion tha

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #3 Straw Man

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I can tell I spent > few months with almost daily runs in OptimizeIt and > several 'ab' per day. > Hold on. It sounds like you think I'm saying you didn't do your homework. I'm not saying you don't know this stuff, I'm saying that there aren't pointers to this work

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #3 Straw Man

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Christopher K. St. John wrote: > Fair enough. I think part of the problem is that one > of the primary goals of the proposal appears to be to > find common ground between the Tomcat 3 and Tomcat 4 > camps. I have the sneaking suspicion that the code should > be the prima

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #2 Tradeoffs

Christopher K. St. John wrote: > Ok, second round. Ok, one last time. > People are +1'ing the _goals_ of the proposal, but I > the proposal itself doesn't give sufficient detail to > determine if the recommended actions will actually > lead to those goals being accomplished. > > Some of the

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #2 Tradeoffs

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Christopher K. St. John wrote: > - What are the peformance goals? Actual numbers or a >percentage improvement goal is something that I would >really like to see in the proposal. Do you have a proposal :-) ? I have no idea what number to put in the proposal. As

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #3 Straw Man

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > If you can clarify your concerns - do you disagree with Coyote > entirely ( and why ), is it something missing that you want > added or something that is there and you feel shouldn't ? > Fair enough. I think part of the problem is that one of the primary goals of t

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #2 Tradeoffs

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > But most of the stuff is needed to get decent > performance - and to be able to support other protocols > and have better integration with the server. > - What are the peformance goals? Actual numbers or a percentage improvement goal is something that I would

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #2 Tradeoffs

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Christopher K. St. John wrote: > The proposal lists a set of goals (like "simpler" and > "more flexibile") and a set of actions to acheive those > goals (like "make Coyote the core of Tomcat 5"). > > I (more or less) agree with the goals, but I have some > reservations a

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #2 Tradeoffs

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Christopher K. St. John wrote: > > > People are +1'ing the _goals_ of the proposal, but I > > the proposal itself doesn't give sufficient detail ... > > That's exactly the target - to set the goals and the overal > direction ( it's a 'long-te

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #2 Tradeoffs

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Christopher K. St. John wrote: > People are +1'ing the _goals_ of the proposal, but I > the proposal itself doesn't give sufficient detail to > determine if the recommended actions will actually > lead to those goals being accomplished. That's exactly the target - to set

RE: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote: > I hope that Tomcat 5.0 proposal draft won't turn in > a battle or flame war between Tomcat and Avalon commiters. +1. The avalon developers think that avalon is pretty much very cool, as do some other people at apache. It's a healthy jakarta project that'

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #2 Tradeoffs

Ok, second round. People are +1'ing the _goals_ of the proposal, but I the proposal itself doesn't give sufficient detail to determine if the recommended actions will actually lead to those goals being accomplished. Some of the goals even appear to be contradictory, but there's no discussio

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

GOMEZ Henri wrote >Tomcat 5.0 appears to be a way to have both teams >works again together to make a better tomcat, >which will be profitable to the whole jakarta >community. > +1 good comment. :-) > > >Tomcat 5.0 will be Coyote 2.0 based, a small and >efficient core. > >The question shouldn'

RE: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

+1 Costin On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote: > I hope that Tomcat 5.0 proposal draft won't turn in > a battle or flame war between Tomcat and Avalon commiters. > > Why ? > > Because we had just too many flams wars in tomcat-dev > between tomcat 3.3 and tomcat 4.x teams. > > Tomcat 5.0

RE: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

I hope that Tomcat 5.0 proposal draft won't turn in a battle or flame war between Tomcat and Avalon commiters. Why ? Because we had just too many flams wars in tomcat-dev between tomcat 3.3 and tomcat 4.x teams. Tomcat 5.0 appears to be a way to have both teams works again together to make a be

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > > >>Remy, I hear you. >>Current Avalon is what you say. >>Next Avalon will be what it was supposed to be in the first place. > > > I think next avalon should start by looking for a problem to solve > before proposing

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm also -1 on Avalon - same reasons as Remy, plus more ( > the IoC madness/obsession, ? madness? It's a pattern, would you say that someone has a "Factory" obsession? > the over-design, Please explain. > ever-changing interfaces, The Avalon 4 interfaces are sta

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0 : #1: 2.4 spec

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I hope the 2.4 API will not do any crazy things > Me too. One of the things I heard mentioned was tighter integration with the NIO api's, which could affect both low and high level layers. OTOH, maybe not, I haven't seen the spec. But that's the whole point. --

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > Remy, I hear you. > Current Avalon is what you say. > Next Avalon will be what it was supposed to be in the first place. I think next avalon should start by looking for a problem to solve before proposing the solution to all the problems :-) And i

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

I'm also -1 on Avalon - same reasons as Remy, plus more ( the IoC madness/obsession, the over-design, ever-changing interfaces, logkit, etc.) Some components are good, and the move to commons is great - but I'm strongly -1 on using the framework. Costin On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Remy Maucherat

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Christopher K. St. John wrote: > Re-architecting Tomcat yet again is a bad step if it's not > absolutely necessary. I have some reservations. To keep from > confusing the issue, I'll list them in separate messages. It's not re-architecting tomcat - AFAIK 5.0 is just a nor

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

> The major goals for Apache Tomcat 5.0 are to: > - have simpler/cleaner code, so more people can get involved Although not Tomcat 5 specific, I would add the following - have good documentation, so more people can use it without going through the dev list - have good documentation, so more peopl

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

Remy, I hear you. Current Avalon is what you say. Next Avalon will be what it was supposed to be in the first place. I respect you and your judgement; if you could give me additional hints on what the problem is about for using Avalon here, I would sincerely be grateful. Anyway, as I tried to

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

Remy Maucherat wrote: > > I'm committing a draft for a Tomcat 5 proposal. > It is a draft, so it is not in final form yet (it needs feedback for that). > Re-architecting Tomcat yet again is a bad step if it's not absolutely necessary. I have some reservations. To keep from confusing the issue,

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

Pier Fumagalli wrote: > "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Extensibility capabilities will be added to Coyote, as well as JMX management >>features, and if possible, addional protocol handlers (like WARP 1.0). > > > As far as I would like to see WARP and its future development,

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

Pier Fumagalli wrote: > "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: >> >>>Remy Maucherat wrote: >>> >>> Hi, I'm committing a draft for a Tomcat 5 proposal. It is a draft, so it is not in final form yet (it needs feedback for that). >

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

"Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: >> >> Remy Maucherat wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm committing a draft for a Tomcat 5 proposal. >>> >>> It is a draft, so it is not in final form yet (it needs feedback for >>> that). >>> >>> I'm attaching the document to

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

"Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Extensibility capabilities will be added to Coyote, as well as JMX management > features, and if possible, addional protocol handlers (like WARP 1.0). As far as I would like to see WARP and its future development, it'll probably end up following a di

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

Remy Maucherat wrote: > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > >> >> Remy Maucherat wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm committing a draft for a Tomcat 5 proposal. >>> >>> It is a draft, so it is not in final form yet (it needs feedback for >>> that). >>> >>> I'm attaching the document to the mail, in

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > > Remy Maucherat wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm committing a draft for a Tomcat 5 proposal. >> >> It is a draft, so it is not in final form yet (it needs feedback for >> that). >> >> I'm attaching the document to the mail, in case people don't want to >> checkout the rep

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

Remy Maucherat wrote: > Hi, > > I'm committing a draft for a Tomcat 5 proposal. > > It is a draft, so it is not in final form yet (it needs feedback for that). > > I'm attaching the document to the mail, in case people don't want to > checkout the repository. What about using Avalon as a fra

Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

GOMEZ Henri wrote: > A big +1 for that draft. > > Things I'd like to see in TC 5.0. > > Delegation: > > don't decode full HTTP headers until > user code ask for (ie locales(), ssl certs) That's done already for the most common things (like locales). A lot of that should already be in TC 4.1.

RE: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0

A big +1 for that draft. Things I'd like to see in TC 5.0. Delegation: don't decode full HTTP headers until user code ask for (ie locales(), ssl certs) It will make TC 5.0 faster (less request processing time, less objets creation/recycling). Extended JMX support: TC 5.0 should be manageabl