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 ? That's exactly what it is beeing proposed for 5.0. Coyote is _not_ a HTTP stack or a connector architecture. It is just a set of basic object representation ( quite minimal I think ) and a hook mechanism. By making Coyote the 'core' we can cut a lot of layers and simplify the code. Apache2.0 uses a similar design - with most of the functionality in modules, and a very small core and clean hook mechanisms. And Apache2.0 does support multiple protocols pretty well ( FTP, etc ), without any problems for the HTTP protocol. So it can be done. If you don't want to use a java-based http protocol - don't. For development and embeded use cases it is pretty usefull, but nobody forces you to use it ( the same as nobody forces you to use any of the apache modules you don't need ). I totally agree a production site should use Apache for http, but if other think a different solution is better for their case, probably they know better. > > 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 ? Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
