tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Remy Maucherat <>
Subject Re: [5.0] Cluster features
Date Tue, 03 Dec 2002 19:07:06 GMT
Costin Manolache wrote:
> Remy Maucherat wrote:
>>>+1 if all new code goes in a separate module ( instead of catalina ),
>>>and is built as separate .jar(s).
>>I wanted to, however I can't do that without changing the API some stuff
>>in the session package (the damn classes are all package private) :-P
>>I suppose it's a lot better to stop the hacks *now*, fix that, and put
>>everything in the cluster package.
> Well, if you must - you must. 
> But we shouldn't have the core depend on the clustering, just add the 
> minimal stuff that you need in the session. 
> If we can stop the hacks and clean something - I think 5.0 is the best 
> chance.
> I would preffer to have a consistent hook mechanism for everything - 
> I'm not sure what callbacks will be involved in the clustering.

I'll remove stuff in the Cluster API, modify some of the session classes 
to allow extending them in a different package, and everything in the 
core is then independent of the clustering.

>>>It may be worth reopening the "minimal tomcat" discussion :-)
>>Maybe. If the difference is only a couple MBs, then it's not worth it,
> Bloat is not about MB or storage. It's about code complexity, potential
> security, etc. 

Ok. All distributions need to be thought as secure, though.

>>If we do an alternate distribution, it would have to be radically
>>different IMO (like for example, being a simple set of JARs without the
>>complex dir structure). The laucher + the + future
>>mods to the config system should make that easy.
> That's what I was thinking about - a set of jars and minimal configuration.
> Eventually using only MBeans for configuration and setup.

I thought this was supposed to be JNDI. JMX does not have any support 
for bean state serialization, right ?

> BTW, we could use MBeans for the optional packages too. I think it works
> pretty well. We'll need to get a consensus on requiring JMX for tomcat5,
> but so far it doesn't seem it'll have a big impact on the code ( I did
> all kind of experiments with modeler and ant lately ).

+1 for JMX (as there's MX4J); as well as JNDI, BTW.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message