Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-tomcat-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 86052 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2002 17:29:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 25 Jun 2002 17:29:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 3611 invoked by uid 97); 25 Jun 2002 17:29:32 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 3594 invoked by uid 97); 25 Jun 2002 17:29:32 -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 3578 invoked by uid 98); 25 Jun 2002 17:29:31 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4198 created Apr 24 2002) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:29:18 -0700 (PDT) From: "Craig R. McClanahan" To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: RE: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal) In-Reply-To: <007c01c21c6c$7d9be690$860210ac@jtrollingerxp> Message-ID: <20020625102237.A38832-100000@icarus.apache.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: localhost 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 On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, John Trollinger wrote: > Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 13:19:40 -0400 > From: John Trollinger > Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List > To: 'Tomcat Developers List' > Subject: RE: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal) > > Although Pier is sometimes harsh with his words he does have some valid > points. I would be nice for tomcat to be somewhat modular so if all you > want is a servlet engine just get those components. I'd say both the 3.3 and 4.0/4.1 architectures are already pretty modular -- is there something specific that you consider monolithic that should be factored apart? Or is it just that finer-grained build.xml targets would do what you want? > This also goes with > moving the CVS repositories.. so you can get only the modules you want > and build the parts of tomcat that you need with out all the overhead. > The Apache infrastructure folks (well, at least some of them) tend to frown on multiple CVS repositories for a single project, and they've got a point -- the number of CVS repositories has nothing to do with how many deliverable distributions you can create from them. For example, the jakarta-commons and jakarta-taglibs repositories each host lots of independently released packages, while a single Tomcat release combines code from 5-10 independent repositories. Craig > > > -----Original Message----- > From: costinm@covalent.net [mailto:costinm@covalent.net] > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 1:07 PM > To: Tomcat Developers List > Subject: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal) > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote: > > > >> Pier could you detail what should be a Tomcat HA, and how > > >> it could fit in TC 5.0 proposal ? > > > > > >As far as I can remember it was voted -1... > > > > What about TC 5.0 with HA capability ? > > TC5.0 will have a 'higher availability' then 4.1 which is better > than 4.0. Same goes for 3.3 versus 3.2, and so on. > > > > I am trying as hard as possible to remain calm and on the > subject when discussing with 'angry' Pier - but the FUD he > is using is unbelievable. > > He can't use tomcat4.0 in production ? Maybe he's trying to > do that with mod_webapp ( with no load balancing AFAIK, and > 'auto configuration' ). And he complains about features - > well, Apache is full of features, and most people know how > to not enable the modules that they don't need on a production > site. > > Now he proposes a "HA tomcat" - as if all our efforts in > so far has been in adding useless features and nobody else > cares about HA. Well, if you would pay attention a lot of > work is beeing put in improving the lb ( an essential factor > for HA ), in adding management ( guess what - JMX is not only > for configuration, but also for getting runtime info and notifications > ), > and in improving the low-level objects to beter deal with the load > ( that's coyote ) plus for 5.0 a simpler core that would allow > more modularity ( coyote again ). > > And the solution he proposes: removing 'useless' features like > jasper or JMX. > > Well, I know quite a few people who managed to get tomcat in > production on a variety of sites ( including very large loads). > Even with tomcat3.2 - a generation behind the current 3.3 and 4.0. > They do that using load balancing and customizing the installation. > Unfortunately Pier's tomcat4.0 doesn't support load balancing, > and it seems he's having problems with the admin module of 4.1. > Well, send a patch - or just disable the offending module in > your code. > > Tomcat out-of-box is feature full and more intended for developers > ( who greatly outnumber the 'production sites'). If you read > the 5.0 proposal, it allows ( or includes ) the ability to > release customized tomcats. > > Of course, nobody stops Pier on working on whatever he wants - > a -1 means he can't do it in the main branch and he can't use > the name 'tomcat', but the proposal/ area has allwasy been open. > If he can get a 'higher availability' than we'll get with 5.0 - > great, we'll all be happy. > > But now Pier treatens he'll just leave us oprhapns ( without > a father). I certainly hope he's not serious with that, and if he > does - I hope he'll return. And in the meantime he may try to > learn to be a bit more polite and modest - and control his > frustrations. > > > > Costin > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > For additional commands, e-mail: > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: