Aaron Smuts wrote: > > I'm very interested. We should call it HouseCat. I'd > like to find a home for it if it doesn't fit into tomcat. >
I detest housecats, but I suppose that's not really the point :-) I'm not sure my is generally useful. The basic approach probably is, but maybe not the code. I personally don't really need all the run-time event stuff (not the servlet-spec events, the Catalina internal events). I don't need JSP. I don't need run-time parsing of the config server.xml and web.xml files. I don't need the full-on security architecture (so I don't need facades and I don't need SecurityManager code). I don't need (but kinda want) the JMX management interfaces. Etc. The code I've written is only useful if you're eliminating the exact same set of things I am. Otherwise, you bloat out until you're full-on Catalina again. (OTOH, projects like Galeon managed to find generally useful subsets of Mozilla, so there's an existence proof that such a thing is possible.) But if I'm the only one use Catalina as a framework instead of as a monolithic servlet container, it isn't going to work. There's too much pressure on developers to 'cheat' and tightly couple all the implementation classes. It's just easier that way. Right now, MinimalTomcat basically can't use anything within o.a.catalina.core, but eventually all the packages will be tightly linked unless there's some sort of incentive not to. -- Christopher St. John [EMAIL PROTECTED] DistribuTopia http://www.distributopia.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
