tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Gomez <>
Subject Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Date Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:59:58 GMT
> I didn't do any real benchmark, but the single-jar 5.5 should be as
> fast on startup as 3.3.


> Less class loaded - and less classes/features you need to worry when
> setting up and maintainig is what I meant by footprint - Jetty is
> around 0.5M I think.

what's the expected class/size for this SmallCat single jar ?

> The fact that we have features for everyone is nice - but a developer
> doesn't need clustering
> or APR, and a production server doesn't need the old connector, the
> simple realm or the even the jasper compiler. It's more about beeing
> simpler for everyone - by providing the functionality they use.
> And no - it doesn't require any major refactoring - just small tweakings.
> I understand this doesn't help for JBoss - but tomcat != jboss.

+1 even if 2 of the major tomcat mainteners are JBOSS employees and we
should all recognize it helped to people working full time on TC
5.5.x. Thanks JBOSS

> As for JMX - I think we do have a lot of things exposed, and adding
> more is quite easy. I think part of the problem is that we may have
> too much :-), and most generic JMX tools are not that good when you
> have too much data to browse. IMO organizaing a bit the information
> and maybe providing simpler interfaces would help.

> Having a minimal set of features in the base package doesn't mean you
> can't have a lot of features, and it doesn't mean it's much harder to
> add features. In a production environment it's the same - either you
> remove all the components you don't need or don't understand ( and
> might break something ), or just add the components that you need.
> Think about Firefox versus Mozilla. We are in exactly the same
> situation, just on server side :-)

Well I switched from Mozilla to IE for such reason and now back to
Firefox since its a small and great piece of OSS (and of course much
more secure)

> It's funny that JBoss does have most of this capability already - so I
> understand Remy not wanting to reinvent the wheel :-), but I don't
> think he can deny that this is a good thing to have.

Of course, JBOSS selected the finest developpers « des têtes bien
faite plutôt que des tête s bien pleines :-)

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

View raw message