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 Wed, 07 Jan 2004 08:22:29 GMT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Costin Manolache" <cmanolache@yahoo.com>
To: <tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: Jk2 object model


> Mladen Turk wrote:
> >
> >
> > From Costin Manolache
> >
> >>Sent: 6. siječanj 2004 8:11
> >>To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> >>Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
> >>
> >>jean-frederic clere wrote:
> >>
> >>>Costin Manolache wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I remember some time ago Mladen (?) was suggesting to use
> >>
> >>C++ for jk2
> >>
> >>>>instead of the pseudo-OO programming.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I am -1 for using C++... And wondering why you want to use C++.
> >>
> >>I don't actually want to use C++ - I'm just a bit unhappy
> >>with the "reinventing the wheel" object model in jk2, and I
> >>was wondering if any alternatives have been discussed.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Me too...
> > The JK2 IMO is a pretty dead project.
> > Henri tried to boost that forcing the APR as a default, we did some
work,
> > but it is agin stalled.
> >
> > IMO for the majority of the people the JK is sufficient enough.
> > Using APR in JK would perhaps make it the same as JK2.
>
> There are few big differences in JNI handling - the in-process for jk1
> is even slower than out-of-process, and didn't work with tc4.
> There is also a lot of "jmx-like" management and monitoring that I think
> is quite usefull.
>
> But you are right - jk / jk2 is probably good enough, no major itch to
> triger big changes. That's not necesarily bad.
>
>
>
> > As I see it, most of the people are looking at JK2 as an enhancement
over
> > the JK, but in the real life there is not much technological difference.
> > We still have a same packet communication between them (that hasn't
changed
> > conceptually from jserv).
>
>
> Well, it hasn't changed since RPC :-) You have 2 programs communicating,
> there aren't too many ways to do it. What's important is we figured
> that in-process with JNI is faster using packet communication. SWT
> figured it's faster using ints and byte[] - which is the other solution
> to avoid the really bad performance of jni ( and strings ).
>
> I'm interested if jk2 could "plug" into more applications - there aren't
> that many generic "connectors". KDE has one specialized for konqueror,
> and mozilla has one - both are mostly for applet support, with xconnect
> hardly used ( and I heard pretty slow ). If jk2 would support (XP)COM or
> gtk object model - it may be possible to access and control various
> desktop application with some simple web-like requests.
>

The big problem that I see is that currently jk2 uses 'abstract classes' to
enable it to handle the fact that that the 'implementing class' needs to
control I/O (reading the Request, writing the Response).  This doesn't fit
well with other frameworks.  IMHO, this part would need to be re-writen to
work on something more like a Listener model (certainly required for a COM
implementation :).  However, this may mean a performance hit when using the
standard Apache/IIS/SunOne modules.

>
> > What I would like to see is something different in approach to the
problem
> > of integration.
> >
> >
> >>So I was wondering if jk2 or
> >>something similar could be used as a connector into apps like
> >>mozilla or evolution ( or any other desktop app ) and allow
> >>access to the services and info inside.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Something simmilar I woud say :-).
>
> Starting from scratch is allways a bad idea ( IMO ).
>
> 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