tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Barker" <wbar...@wilshire.com>
Subject Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0
Date Sun, 23 Jun 2002 02:26:04 GMT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Nielsen" <glenn@voyager.apg.more.net>
To: "Tomcat Developers List" <tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal draft for Tomcat 5.0


> -1 At this time for starting work on Tomcat 5 (jakarta-tomcat-5)
>

How about if the proposal were amended to not set up jakarta-tomcat-5.0
until both JSRs go public-draft?  This will gain you a few weeks at least.
However, IMHO, we can't afford to wait on 4.1 (assuming that it hasn't gone
GA by the release of the public-draft) to start on 5.0 if we want to release
when 2.4 goes final.

> This is not a good time to start work on Tomcat 5 based on the
> proposal as put forward for the following reasons:
>
> 1.  There are alot of new features and changes in Tomcat 4.1.
>     These have not been used much in production and alot of
>     bug fixes can be expected in that codebase over the next
>     2-3 months.
>
> 2.  Forking the codeBase will increase the amount of work it takes
>     to apply bug fixes, minor refactorings, etc. to the codebase.
>
> 3.  According to the proposal all of the proposed changes are minor
>     except for supporting Servlet 2.4 (JSR 154) and JSP 2.0 (JSR 152).
>     JSR 152 isn't scheduled for public review until July 29, 2002 and
>     JSR 154 does not yet have a date listed for public review.
>
> 4.  Tomcat 4.1, JTC, and Jasper 2 should have their final release
>     before work starts on Tomcat 5.
>
> The earliest I would change my vote for the Tomcat 5 proposal would be
> after both JSR 152 and JSR 154 have been released for public review
> and Tomcat 4.1 has had a final release.
>
> Regards,
>
> Glenn
>
> Remy Maucherat wrote:
> >
> > Bill Barker wrote:
> > > Firstly, let me add my +1 to the proposal. tomcat-dev could use more
> > > warm-and-fuzzies. ;-)
> >
> > Thanks :)
> >
> > >>I have been following the discussion regarding the Tomcat 5 proposal.
> > >>
> > >>I have some general comments.
> > >>
> > >>Improve Performance Goal:
> > >>
> > >>I agree with Chritopher that in order to make improved performance
> > >>a goal you need to have metrics by which you can measure whether you
> > >>have met that goal, not anecdotal evidence.  Catalina consists of
> > >>a number of different components; mod_jk, http, JSP, SSI, CGI, etc.
> > >>Some of these components can have different performance
characteristics
> > >>based on how they are being used.  For example a simple HelloWorld.jsp
> > >>versus Complex500Tags.jsp.  This begs for a performance testing suite
> > >>which can provide consistent reproducable results.  If there is enough
> > >>interest in this perhaps a separate repository could be created called
> > >>jakarta-tomcat-bench.  The benchmarks could be used to measure
performance
> > >>of different tomcat versions and other containers as well.
> > >
> > >
> > > +0
> > > I'd probably use it if somebody else did the work, but I agree with
Remy
> > > that any single benchmark suite isn't going to tell you how your
particular
> > > web-app will perform.
> >
> > +1.
> >
> > It is not Tomcat buisness to define benchmarks or a workload. Others
> > spent years doing that. If you're interested to do it, maybe you can
> > start a project in commons, but this is off-topic here.
> >
> > Or, you can pick up your favorite load, run it once in a while, and post
> > the results for us to enjoy.
> >
> > >>Proposal in General:
> > >>
> > >>The proposal is pretty vague on details.  I have seen a number of
> > >>replies stating "That's an implementation detail".  I for one would
> > >>like to see the proposal broken out into much more detail before
> > >>work starts.  Perhaps we should take a step back and start asking
> > >>questions first so that there is more information and consensus for
> > >>a formal proposal.  Questions like:
> > >>
> > >>   1. What code in Tomcat really smells bad?
> > >
> > >
> > > This is an evolution.  Anything that smells bad can be fixed in 4.1.x
(and
> > > will be picked up by 5.0.x).  If you want a revolution, that is
another
> > > proposal.
> >
> > *NO* code will be removed, except o.a.c.connector.*, which is indeed a
> > bad implementation. That particular item is explicitely stated in the
> > proposal.
> >
> > Other than that, other small refactorings will probably happen in both
> > 4.1 and 5.0, but they are small refactorings which we will consider on a
> > case by case basis.
> >
> > I am strongly in favor of maintaining compatibility (source and binary)
> > with the 4.1 modules. We've lost a lot of time rewriting them, and I
> > don't want to do that again.
> >
> > >>My fear is that work on Tomcat 5 will turn into a CVS version of
> > >>the wild wild west if the proposal isn't detailed enough.
> > >
> > >
> > > Again, this is an evolution.  Currently in 4.1.x the only supported
> > > connectors (with the exception of Warp, which Remy wants to bring in)
use
> > > Coyote.  The proposal is little more than to expose a little bit more
of
> > > Coyote to the servlet-container to allow for some additional
optimizations.
> > > In addition, it removes the (currently deprecated)
o.a.c.connectors.**, and
> > > o.a.ajp.**.  Think of it as spring cleaning.
> >
> > +1. Good summary.
> >
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>


--
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