tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Barker" <wbar...@wilshire.com>
Subject Re: Jk2 object model
Date Fri, 09 Jan 2004 07:31:21 GMT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Costin Manolache" <cmanolache@yahoo.com>
To: <tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: Jk2 object model


> Mladen Turk wrote:
> >>From: Costin Manolache
> >>
> >>So my suggestion ( deja vue ? ) is to use "evolution" :-). A change in
> >>the OO model ( if needed ) or fixing/improving the current one is not
> >>as big change as it seems - it's mostly in initialization code.
> >>
> >
> >
> > How about 'revolution'? On the other hand how does the evolution differs
> > from revolution?
>
>
> My point was that fixing/improving the current code - maybe by first
> fixing the object model, then adding modules - is better than starting
> from scratch or trying to make a huge change at once.
>

You pushed for an 'evolution' for TC5, and look what it got us:  The most
stable Tomcat GA release ever ;-).

>
> >
> > and...
> > If we don't put ourselfs out from 'reusable' concept, nothing new will
ever
> > be done thought.
> > Trying to reclyle something, as you nicely said "stable and done", is
> > poinntless from the '(r)evolution' perspective.
>
> It's not "recycle" - but improve. And I don't know why you feel it's
> pointless.
>
>
> >
> > Either we'll do (like Monty Pyton's said) something completely
different, or
> > we'll be once again asking ourselfs the same questions for year or so,
and
> > the guys will still use the JK or swith to something else.
>
> Doing something completely different for the sake of doing it different
> and without understanding or knowing what is wrong with the current
> approach is not going to lead us to something better - just different.
>

Could actually be said for much of Jk2.  However, the Jk2 code is much more
maintainable, so I'd prefer to 'evolve' from there.  The reasons that I'm
sticking to Jk1 for all of my production servers are pretty small, and
fixable.

> So far I haven't heard any concrete proposal of doing something
> different - just nice goals ( "easier config", etc ). IMO using JMX-like
> model you can support almost any config needs - zeroconf/randezvous/etc.
> And the performance is result of lots of work and tunning - I never seen
> any "rewrite from scratch, completely different" project to be faster (
> at least not in less than few years ). Same for stability BTW.
>

Well, to be a little nicer than Costin, so far we have seen an abstract idea
of sending the request to Tomcat to ask if it wants to map it (avoiding the
double-mapping that we do now).  However, the revolutionaries out there need
to put together a [PROPOSAL] first before there can be a decision on
revolusion vs. evolusion.  There is a page on the Jakarta site spelling this
out, from the last time this issue almost split this community apart :).

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


Mime
View raw message