tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Costin Manolache <cmanola...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Some JK2 ideas v.3
Date Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:57:22 GMT
Remy Maucherat wrote:

> Costin Manolache wrote:
> 
>> What complexity does JNI add to jk2 ? There are separate files, using 
>> the same protocol.
>>
>> The real important lesson in Jk2 is that JNI works faster and better 
>> if it is not used to pass objects.
>>
>> The only 2 JNI models that actually work are jk2 "protocol 
>> marshalling, pass only byte[]" and eclipse swt "small simple calls 
>> with mostly int and byte[] params"
> 
> 
> 
> All that is cool, but what you propose looks a lot like JK 2 (JMX 
> dynamic features, support for many webservers, etc), and we know that 
> almost no developer understands it anymore. This clashes head on with 
> the "it has to be simple" requirement: how do you expect the issue to be 
> solved ?


JMX seems to simplify tomcat5 pretty well, and I think it would be a big 
  lost if we would say 'let's simplify tomcat5 and remove jmx'.

If you don't have the ability to deal with the changes in the cluster 
and the added/removed webapps - why bother, just use mod_proxy and 
you're done.  Why write a special connector if it wouldn't take 
advantage of almost any tomcat benefit ?

Regarding multiple servers - if JMX, then the code will probably have 
some modularity that would allow this anyway.

One thing is clear - if you start with the idea "let's not have JMX, may 
be will add it later", it'll be impossible to do it. That's what we 
tried in jk2, and it's not very nice. If you start with a dynamic design 
  - and take into account the implications on config, code structure, 
etc - then it may be a bit more complex that the "simplest connector", 
however you'll have a good base for future changes.


> 
> This is the point about dropping server portability, among other things. 
> Sorry to say it aloud, but for new developments I don't care about IIS 
> (it should die) nor Apache 1.3, which are the two other servers that 
> matter. To support these, we have mod_jk 1.2 (and too bad if people 
> don't get the extra features).



One of the things I'm very interested in is getting tomcat "connected" 
with other, non-web server applications. I realize this is crazy and 
most people don't need such a thing - but we all have crazy ideas, and 
it happens that having a generic support that works for IIS or iPlanet 
will also allow other kinds of connectors.

If JMX is used, then it'll require modularity which will then allow 
other connectors based on the same components.

I'm +1 on dropping IIS and apache1.3 BTW.

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