Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 41587 invoked by uid 500); 20 May 2003 06:53:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 41573 invoked from network); 20 May 2003 06:53:18 -0000 Received: from mail.s-und-n.de (212.8.217.2) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 20 May 2003 06:53:18 -0000 Received: from mail.s-und-n.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.s-und-n.de (postfix) with ESMTP id 3D953B5C02 for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 08:53:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from notes.sundn.de (ntsrv5.sundn.de [10.10.2.10]) by mail.s-und-n.de (postfix) with ESMTP id C2E13B5BBF for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 08:53:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hw0386 ([10.10.2.34]) by notes.sundn.de (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with SMTP id 2003052008532814:164979 ; Tue, 20 May 2003 08:53:28 +0200 From: "Carsten Ziegeler" To: Subject: RE: SoC between flow and sitemap Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:54:50 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on PBSN1/Systeme und Netzwerke(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 20.05.2003 08:53:28, Serialize by Router on PBSN1/Systeme und Netzwerke(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 20.05.2003 08:53:28, Serialize complete at 20.05.2003 08:53:28 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > What about BEA weblogic, IBM webshere, Oracle appserver, etc, etc, etc? > > Hypothetical chat between a CTO and a cocoon proponent: > > - cocoon? we are interested at it, but is it fast? > - the pipeline creation is very complex and can be much slower than > text-based tecnologies, but cocoon has a very good caching mechanism > that allows to reuse all possible content and provide your own caching > logic to components if you need to. The results in real life prove > cocoon to be highly efficient. In a highly critical environment (which I > can't name), the use of cocoon proved to be orders of magnitude faster > than a rival application based on Oracle Internet File System. > > - what about static stuff? cocoon is much slower than a web server! > - yes, but I normally suggest to put a transparent proxy up front and > cocoon will serve static content only once, the remaining it done by the > proxy lightning fast. (it is also transparent if you have dynamically > generated resources like images, flash files or CSS stylesheets and > allows to maintain all your URI space in one comfortable location) > > - hmmm, ok, but does it scale for dynamic stuff? > - sure, for a stateless cocoon environment, you can throw silicon at it > and balance the load transparently by replicating the cocoon environment > on different machines. A european company (which I can't name) did tests > that showed 12000 req/sec on a big clustered environment. > > - cool, but what about stateful cases, expecially with the flow and > this new continuation thing, does it scale? > - only with tomcat and mod_jk > > - ok, we'll use struts then. > Regarding performance: a different big european company proved that the Cocoon solution is much faster than the former jsp solution. I think, everything comes down to "I don't use what I don't know". Carsten