Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-tomcat-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 5036 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2002 18:41:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Dec 2002 18:41:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 16318 invoked by uid 97); 3 Dec 2002 18:42:05 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 16159 invoked by uid 97); 3 Dec 2002 18:42:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Tomcat Developers List" Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 16100 invoked by uid 98); 3 Dec 2002 18:42:02 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) Message-ID: <3DECFAB0.7060208@apache.org> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 19:40:48 +0100 From: Remy Maucherat Organization: ASF User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021129 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: Re: [5.0] Cluster features References: <3DECE0D2.9030504@apache.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: localhost.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Costin Manolache wrote: > Remy Maucherat wrote: > > >>Hi, >> >>I think the clustering features in Tomcat 5 should get an overhaul. >>Despite some licensing dicrepancies, I plan to use JavaGroups for the >>task (LGPL license), as well as some code which was donated a while ago >>by Filip Hanik. Based on what is already done, the amount of work that >>will have to be done to have quality clustering features seems small. >> >>Most of the current clustering API will be removed in the process, since >>it doesn't seem to be maintained anymore, and didn't evolve past >>experimental stage (if I am wrong on that, let me know). >> >>I also plan to bundle JavaGroups with Tomcat 5, as it only adds a 1MB >>standalone JAR. Configuring Tomcat for clustering will be quite easy >>once all the code is in place. >> >>I don't know if that plan is acceptable for everyone. Originally, >>I -1ed the code submission because of licensing and absence of >>integration with the existing Cluster API. The licensing issue is still >>there, but since the Cluster API now seems sort of dead, another >>solution has to be found (IMO, of course there's JK available). >> >>Comments ? > > > +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. > I think it is time to stop bloating the base tomcat source and binaries. > > BTW, it may be a good time to move some of the current features in separate > modules as well. ( SSI, WebDAV, etc ). For webdav - I would rather see slide > bundled with tomcat and the current code deprecated. > > I'm not talking ( for now ) about a real module with descriptors or > anything, just separate dirs in the CVS and a .jar target that can be > included or not. Ok. > It may be worth reopening the "minimal tomcat" discussion :-) Maybe. If the difference is only a couple MBs, then it's not worth it, 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 catalina.properties + future mods to the config system should make that easy. Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: