lucene-solr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Hatcher <e...@ehatchersolutions.com>
Subject Re: Jetty downgrade
Date Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:21:53 GMT
I'm on the Jetty side of the fence when it comes to the Tomcat debate  
personally.  Jetty has always been very fast and running "java -jar  
start.jar" is so much more pleasant than I've experienced with  
Tomcat.  If someone wants to push Tomcat in so that it can be run in  
a similarly fast and lightweight way then I'm +1 for sure.  Quite  
likely my experience with Tomcat is outdated and it could be done  
much like Jetty.

	Erik


On Apr 24, 2006, at 12:15 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:

> I'm OK with a downgrade... there wasn't any particular reason to go
> with Jetty6 other than it was the latest-and-greatest.
> There is still the tomcat vs jetty issue though:
>
> http://www.nabble.com/tutorial-or-demo-download-t1121522.html#a2933223
>
> It does seem like the first thing many people try to do is get Solr
> running with Tomcat.  Perhaps that's another reason for the example to
> be Tomcat based?
>
> -Yonik
>
> On 4/24/06, Erik Hatcher <erik@ehatchersolutions.com> wrote:
>> I had trouble returning a field from Solr (as detailed in a previous
>> e-mail) using the built-in Jetty.  It worked fine with Tomcat, and I
>> just tried it with Jetty 5.1.11RC0 and it works as well.  It seems
>> the Jetty version in Solr's repository is an "unstable" version that
>> has some type of response rendering bug (with use of NIO?) but that
>> the latest "stable" release works fine.
>>
>> Are there reasons we need to have an unstable version of Jetty built
>> into the example app?  Or would it be ok to switch to 5.1.11RC0?


Mime
View raw message