geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeff Genender" <jgenen...@savoirtech.com>
Subject RE: How do we ship jetty and tomcat versions? Please respond
Date Tue, 06 Sep 2005 13:41:01 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Bohn [mailto:joe.bohn@earthlink.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 7:27 AM
> To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
> Subject: Re: How do we ship jetty and tomcat versions? Please respond
> 
> I too am confused about the use case scenario that would 
> drive this?   
> Also, can we be more specific on the level of granularity 
> that is being considered here?  Would it be just: 1 tomcat 
> container,  1 jetty 
> container, both a single tomcat and a single jetty container? 
>   Or is it 
> also being considered that we would support multiple tomcat 
> containers and multiple jetty containers (possibly even at 
> different container versions).

In theory, right now, you could easily have multiples of a single Tomcat
version by declaring the necessary Gbeans.  However, having multiple
versions of the same appserver would be a bit more tough due to clashes in
the classes, and would likely need some serious classloader work.

However, the simple fact of having multiple containers is difficult at best.
We all forget that the EJB containers can only have a single listener for
the web services, so even if we do run multiple containers, only one will be
able to support ejb endpoints (that is unless we duplicate the OpenEJB
configs - and I don't know the implications of this).

> 
> 
> Do any other application servers support multiple concurrent 
> web containers?
> 
> 
> If it is decided that this is a valid scenario, then the 
> implications of 
> this would ripple throughout the code.  This is especially 
> problematic 
> for the web console where we would have to visually keep track of 
> multiple containers, applications, connections, etc.. active on each 
> container, logs associated with each container, configuration 
> attributes 
> of each container, etc... But I think this approach would have 
> significant implications for other components as well, including 3rd 
> party software that might need to interact with our server (such as 
> external management applications using JMX).

Yep...IMHO, you are correct on this.

> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> 
> > David Jencks wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> I wrote a namespace-driven switching module builder to 
> determine if 
> >> the jetty or tomcat builder is used.  It has a defaultNamespace  
> >> option which is what currently determines the target.  The module 
> >> builders register themselves with the switch and supply 
> their namespace.
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> So, in more detail, I propose we ship:
> >>
> >> -all the configurations, for both jetty and tomcat, installed
> >> - 3 pairs of config.list and config.xml files that run both, only 
> >> jetty, and only tomcat
> >> - both containers and builders running by default.
> >
> >
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > Both, by default? Interesting. Will there be a way in your 
> proposal to 
> > deploy a WAR to *both* containers? Since the 
> defaultNamespace option 
> > is to drive what container a WAR is deployed to I think the 
> answer is 
> > negative, isn't it? (or alternatively it could assume that no 
> > defaultNamespace would mean both) If so, why would a user 
> want to run 
> > Jetty and Tomcat? I don't mind having two containers and builders 
> > running at the same time, but wonder if there's a user case 
> for it (a 
> > web hosting provider?).
> >
> >> david jencks
> >
> >
> > Jacek
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> Joe Bohn     
> joe.bohn@earthlink.net
> 
> "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he 
> cannot lose."   -- Jim Elliot
> 



Mime
View raw message