tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher K.St.John <...@distributopia.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] MinimalTomcat, Coupling, Bugs 6669, 6670
Date Tue, 26 Feb 2002 02:13:42 GMT
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> 
> Well, it's not that I want to advocate the "competition", but it seems to me
> that Tomcat 3 is more useful for a "MiniTomcat", mainly because it requires
> only JDK 1.1 (smaller JDK; J2ME is based on JDK 1.1, so maybe it could end
> up being a "target"; that was one of Costin's pet projects, actually).
> 

 For my purposes, it's ok to assume 1.2, so that's not
an issue. 

 If Tomcat 4 isn't meant to be used like I'm using it,
then I don't really understand the point of the generic
interfaces in o.a.catalina. If StandardContext is the
only possible Context implementation, what's the
justification for a generic Context interface?

 The current architecture requires an awful lot of
casts, and if the only configuration allowed is:

 StandardEngine/StandardHost/StandardContext/StandardWrapper

 then most of them are unnessary. What's the point
of going through hoops with the generic interfaces
if you know the exact types in advance?

 I understand that project goals can change, but the
design of the apis (not to mention the javadocs)
do seem to strongly imply that something like MinimalTomcat
should be legit.


-- 
Christopher St. John cks@distributopia.com
DistribuTopia http://www.distributopia.com

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message