click-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From georgex <>
Subject Re: Could Click run on SimpleWeb?
Date Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:19:13 GMT

Adrian A. wrote:
>> Could Click be modified/tweaked easily to run on SimpleWeb server?
> If such a update would be made, than we would need to throw away the 
> backward compatibility (one of the main selling points of Click) since 
> the servlet API is also exposed to the user applications.
It's fair to keep the compatibility, but what if the  users don't use the
servlet API directly with purpose to be able to run on SimpleWeb too? 

Adrian A. wrote:
>> Click needs a Servlet Container, but how much of it is really using
>> (considering that Click has it's own life cycle)?
>> Couldn't be that part a little bit more generic? (like the templating or
>> the
>> logging service )? To be able to run on SimpleWeb too?
> I suppose you could try to run a Click application right now on 
> SimpleWeb too, since SimpleWeb
> seems to have a Servlet adapter:
> (You can find some examples of running Tapestry and Wicket on SimpleWeb 
> on the net, so Click should run too)
That's an approach, but I was to vague: the whole point of using SimpleWeb
is because
of it's speed (speed that was gained too by *not* implementing the Servlet
requirements and constraints!).
Another one is how good it scales - how many requests can be handled with
the given hardware resources.
Since the Servlet API ties a thread per session, it consumes much more

Tapestry seems to have such "direct" integration:
without the Servlet API.

If Click would have a similar implementation, it would be interesting to
compare how it competes on the ClickBench with the
servlet version.


View this message in context:
Sent from the click-development mailing list archive at

View raw message