Filip Hanik a écrit :
hi Henri,
When I used JavaGroups (not anymore because of licensing) it was to do
session replication.
Any type of replication or clustering will always impact performance in a
negative way, but instead of you achieve fail over and high availability.
Now I use standard TCP
Did someone here (may be Filip), could tell us if the use of
javagroups instead of standard tcp connections could have
some speed impact (negative or positive).
Just to have some clues in the current reflexion of jk/jk2
successor
Regards
-Original Message-
From: Henri Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:59 AM
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: javagroups questions - Was: Jk2 object model
Did someone here (may be Filip), could tell us if the use of
javagroups instead of standard tcp connections could
- Original Message -
From: Mike Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 5:01 AM
Subject: RE: Jk2 object model
I'm definitely interested in helping with this but feel I'm out of the loop
a little. What areas would be best for me to research (JMX
Developers List
Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
But this time I'd like to spend a month or so doing 'real' design
without the single line of code. If we manage to put and
describe our
needs on the paper, the coding itself will took
insignificant amount
of time. If this plan shows
From: Costin Manolache
Sent: 11. sijeanj 2004 2:36
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
But this time I'd like to spend a month or so doing 'real' design
without the single line of code. If we manage to put and
describe our
needs on the paper, the coding
Mladen Turk wrote:
From: Henri Gomez
As many I feel that jk (and maybe also jk2) are now pretty
stable, and I don't see the need for a new just web/tomcat connector.
Finally someone :-).
That's why I did try to use the revolutionary approach. Jet another
connector wouldn't make a much
- Original Message -
From: Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
Mladen Turk wrote:
From: Costin Manolache
So my suggestion ( deja vue ? ) is to use evolution :-). A change in
the OO model
Mike Anderson wrote:
I agree that the current connectors (jk and jk2) are fairly stable and
done because they just work. The hardest part in using them is that
there is a lot of duplicated setup between the Java/Tomcat side and the
webserver configuration just to get things working. Then, when
-Original Message-
From: jean-frederic clere
Sent: 9. sijeanj 2004 8:35
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
The concept (approach) as I see it is to be able to make a
connector
(integrator), that would allow the zero-based-configuration. Meaning
I'm pretty busy these days so I can't works on JK2 as I want to.
Some ideas/reflexions.
JK2 is very similar to JK, from the tomcat point of vue, since the
same ajp13 protocol is used, and may be in such case we could see JK2
too similar to JK to see users switch to JK2 (for instance we're still
much interest of the developer community
thought.
I also use the JK for production servers, and it is doing just fine for what
it needs to.
MT.
-Original Message-
From: Henri Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 8. sijeanj 2004 9:54
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: Re: Jk2 object
Mladen Turk a crit :
Hi,
Since I've started few months ago all the C++ fuzziness (I did posted even
some source to Costin back then),
my intention wasn't to CPP-ize the existing code, but rather to move that
'dead' code on some new tracks.
What I'm looking since then is some kind of different
-Original Message-
From: Henri Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree with you that this would be JK3, rather then JK2 on
steroids
:-), and it would require a different perspective.
I'm in favor of _usability_ over performance in that new approach.
JavaGroups or
Hate to quote myself, but...
As I said, the performance isn't a priority here, but rather
usability.
I'm sure that TC guys will be open here, and we will see
(perhaps even in
5.1) the 'open TC API', that could be directly used, or
seamlessly integrated from the native side.
I would
The major mistake in jk2 is the 2 in the name. It was an error to
fork ( even if it was easier to code and move it ) instead of improving
mod_jk and adding/fixing.
In JNI mode and from configuration perspective - as well as ability to
use non-tcp-socket communation - jk2 is way ahead. As code
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
I agree that the current connectors (jk and jk2) are fairly stable and
done because they just work. The hardest part in using them is that
there is a lot of duplicated setup between the Java/Tomcat side and the
webserver configuration just to get things working. Then, when you add
a new webapp
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
Mladen Turk wrote:
From Costin Manolache
Sent: 6. sijeanj 2004 8:11
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
- Original Message -
From: Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
Mladen Turk wrote:
From Costin Manolache
Sent: 6. sijeanj 2004 8:11
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
-Original Message-
From: Bill Barker
Sent: 7. sijeanj 2004 9:22
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
I'm interested if jk2 could plug into more applications -
there aren't
that many generic connectors. KDE has one specialized for
konqueror
performance.
Regards,
Glenn
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:52:06AM +0100, Mladen Turk wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bill Barker
Sent: 7. sije?anj 2004 9:22
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
I'm interested if jk2 could plug into more applications
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:50:32AM +0100, Mladen Turk wrote:
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.
Could someone put a big warning statment on the web site about this?
Honestly, 90%
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
From Costin Manolache
Sent: 6. sijeanj 2004 8:11
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
I remember some time ago Mladen (?) was suggesting to use C++ for jk2
instead of the pseudo-OO programming. Did anything got discussed/decided
about this or the low-level model ?
Costin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
- Original Message -
From: Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 11:44 PM
Subject: Jk2 object model
I remember some time ago Mladen (?) was suggesting to use C++ for jk2
instead of the pseudo-OO programming. Did anything got discussed
Bill Barker a écrit :
- Original Message -
From: Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 11:44 PM
Subject: Jk2 object model
I remember some time ago Mladen (?) was suggesting to use C++ for jk2
instead of the pseudo-OO programming. Did
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++.
Did anything got discussed/decided
about this or the low-level model ?
Costin
30 matches
Mail list logo
