tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Costin Manolache <>
Subject Re: Jk2 object model
Date Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:51:00 GMT
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.

> 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 

> 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.

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.


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

View raw message