geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Tomcat, logging, admin portlet, and GBeans
Date Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:57:35 GMT
On Sep 9, 2005, at 9:47 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, David Jencks wrote:
>> I don't fully understand what this issue is about, but I would like to
>> point out that the first assumption (that there is one web container
>> per image) is currently wrong and IMO not likely to change for M5
> 	I'm not sure I understand.  I really oppose shipping a server with
> both Tomcat and Jetty active.  I thought it was going to be a Tomcat
> download and a Jetty download.  And if this was achieved by having both
> present in the server but one was disabled and effectively invisible,
> fine, that's effectively equivalent to only one being present.
> Aaron

On Sep 9, 2005, at 9:30 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:

> Of course you are correct David.  Your hard work has made it possible  
> so that we can support multiple containers concurrently.  My statement  
> below was not directly related to this design.   I was only trying to  
> keep things consistent in the console for now (which always assumes  
> just 1 active web container at a time).   Since the console is still  
> being considered a "tech preview" for M5 I don't think this will  
> present a problem for that delivery.
> However, since you brought it up ... did we ever gain consensus on our  
> packaging plans and typical environment?   I wasn't aware that this  
> issue was settled (not that I want to start the discussion here :-) ).  
>  IIRC there were questions about this being a scenario that most users  
> would understand and I don't believe that we have yet identified a  
> practical scenario where a user would require this.  There were also  
> questions about supporting multiple containers of the same or  
> different versions and any problems that might arise as a result (such  
> as class loader issues).
> I'm referring to the discussion that you started in this thread so  
> perhaps we should take the discussion up again on that thread.
> If has been decided that we will give the user the option of  
> configuring the system with numerous web containers then we need to  
> expose this fact in the console and possibly in other places for  
> management capabilities (do we currently have a command line that  
> would need to change?).  From the web console perspective we will also  
> need to evaluate how we can manage this complexity without confusing  
> the typical user (who I suspect will probably be running just 1 web  
> container).
> -Joe
> .

Right now, both jetty and tomcat are running in the standard server.   
We can make it so only one starts by default fairly easily by changing  
the config.list.  The "tomcat" goal or setting the web container to  
tomcat changes the ports each container uses by default, but both start  
at the moment.

However, if we ship both configurations, it is going to be very easy to  
get 2 web containers running at once, whether on purpose or not, by  
starting a configuration that is deployed to the "other" web container.

I don't see a great deal of utility for running multiple web containers  
in one geronimo server, but I'm not an end user.  I certainly hesitate  
to tell our end users that they will never want to do it.  Since we  
have the technical ability to do it I would prefer that the management  
console support it in some way or at least not prevent it.

david jencks

View raw message