Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 713 invoked from network); 21 Jul 1999 02:41:56 -0000 Received: from mercury.sun.com (192.9.25.1) by apache.org with SMTP; 21 Jul 1999 02:41:56 -0000 Received: from engmail4.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.144.134.6]) by mercury.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA04596 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 19:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from taller.eng.sun.com (taller.Eng.Sun.COM [129.144.251.34]) by engmail4.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1/ENSMAIL,v1.6) with SMTP id TAA18434 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 19:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eng.sun.com by taller.eng.sun.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA23681; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 19:41:52 -0700 Message-ID: <37953417.A2485A91@eng.sun.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 19:44:39 -0700 From: James Todd Organization: Sun Microsystems X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Subject: Re: request for review: server/config discussion References: <3794DCB6.D7A9872E@eng.sun.com> <3794E650.D038BB6A@algroup.co.uk> <3794EE1F.A98D643B@eng.sun.com> <19990720183708.B31037@usite.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Troy Poppe wrote: > > > it could be that an api is provided via the service to "check" > > the freshness (born on date) of the data and leave it up to > > the client (eg server) to do with what it may with the results. > > another passive means might be to throgh some sort of exception > > indicating that "data you've obtained from me has since been > > modified." > > I like this idea of the server becoming the client for its own > configuration (that is what you are saying right? :)). Meta-configuation > perhaps? > i believe that is a possibility ... a "generalized" configuration service can come into play and the owner/operator of the service can choose, at least in the early rounds, on how closely to bind this service with the user entity (eg http server). in the early states i think we should error on the side of "make it simple" (in this specific case passive notification). i'm going to go on a bit'o pieInTheSky here for a moment so please bear with me (and please don't loose faith that i'm not tracking the details necessary to get us from "talk to walk"). i see a couple of dimensions unfolding here and, while i prefer to keep things simple in the early stages so that we can start proto-typing some of the these concepts, we should still strive to aim high, a possible target being: if the "config service" supports http as one communication protocol (lots of good reasons to do this) it will need to rely on an http server (or embedded server) a smallish and pure 100% java server, such as tomcat, can most likely fit the bill here (i'm sure there are others but i'd aim for bare bones at this point ... sides, the server should/could be pluggable ... but i'm a proponent of tomcat for the first go 'round) the server the "config service" relys on itself might perhaps require a config service ... which might be a expressed as a ?very? similiar config service we're talking about today ... possibly bound in a bit tighter to the config service proper ... possibly not ... as it is all just a service at one level ... it is just an instantion ordering difference that is the pontential ... errrr ... one of the possible potentials should this puppy (api and protocol) is mapped out a bit. my thoughts anyways, - james