From dev-return-16928-apmail-geronimo-dev-archive=geronimo.apache.org@geronimo.apache.org Fri Sep 09 17:07:14 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 42288 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2005 17:07:13 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Sep 2005 17:07:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 60007 invoked by uid 500); 9 Sep 2005 17:07:08 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 59945 invoked by uid 500); 9 Sep 2005 17:07:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 59930 invoked by uid 99); 9 Sep 2005 17:07:07 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Sep 2005 10:07:07 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [66.250.40.202] (HELO saturn.opentools.org) (66.250.40.202) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Sep 2005 10:07:20 -0700 Received: by saturn.opentools.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id A465B3FA1; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 13:27:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by saturn.opentools.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DE92F3D1 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 13:27:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 13:27:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mulder X-X-Sender: ammulder@saturn.opentools.org To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: Tomcat, logging, admin portlet, and GBeans In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <4315E59C.9020809@earthlink.net> <4321A114.4040403@earthlink.net> <4321B8B9.8050507@earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N I really believe that choice is a bad thing. I don't believe we should offer 2 options to a user. How are they supposed to decide? How are we supposed to guide them? I'll grant you that there may (*may*) be some possible reason for a very advanced user to want to run 2 different web containers. I really believe this should be an advanced manual process (e.g. download Tomcat build, then deploy Jetty plan). I really really really don't want to encumber every user with both Jetty and Tomcat in order to support this dual-container feature. I really really really don't want to make it easy for a user to inadvertently or on a whim run both containers, such that every web-related question or bug report will require us to get the user to figure out what's actually running and what they deployed to and so on. Anyway, all that said, I agree that the console should support runing more than one web container, but I don't feel that's a priority for M5. The same is true for EJB, JMS, etc. It will require some thought on how we want to present things and a fair bit of work to revise the JSPs. Not a huge deal, but not something I feel the urge to spent time in in the short term. Do you think it's necessary for M5? Aaron On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, David Jencks wrote: > 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. > > > thanks > david jencks > >