geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian McCallister <>
Subject Re: [Vote] Installer: Default Web Container Selection
Date Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:23:41 GMT
+1 for Jetty


On Dec 8, 2005, at 6:10 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:

> Ok then based on this...
> I hope that this group takes into the account of all votes,  
> including those that use the app server, our community and users.   
> If we cannot be neutral, then minimally we should let the users  
> decide what they want as a default container.  If everyone wants  
> Jetty as a default, then I am behind it.  But if a majority want  
> Tomcat, lets give the community what they want.
> A vote was put out...lets see what our users want.
> Jeff
> John Sisson wrote:
>> I have changed my mind, please ignore my previous vote.
>> My vote is now:
>> [ X ] Make Jetty the default Web Container install selection
>> My initial concerns were with users not familiar with Jetty (e.g.  
>> Tomcat users) and the lack of Geronimo documentation on Jetty.  I  
>> chatted to Greg W on IRC and he said he will improve the  
>> documentation.  I have raised JIRAs GERONIMO-1314 and GERONIMO-1315.
>> Thinking about it more, those who already use Tomcat in other  
>> projects are probably going to click Tomcat if they don't go to  
>> the trouble of looking into Jetty.
>> I agree with Aaron that we should make it clear in the  
>> documentation that it is only a default to simplify the install  
>> process and either container can be used and both are supported.
>> John
>> Erik Daughtrey wrote:
>>> The installer  should make either Tomcat or Jetty the default  
>>> selection.  The operator can always override and select the  
>>> other. Vote:
>>> [  ] Make Tomcat the default web container install selection
>>> We may run out of time before the votes can be tallied. For that  
>>> reason, I'm making the default Jetty unless someone can provide a  
>>> good reason why it shouldn't be.
>>> FYI - it's been decided that installation of both web containers  
>>> via the installer will not be allowed.  Manual configuration of  
>>> both is possible though.

View raw message