On 7/3/03 18:14, "Antonio Gallardo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Antonio Gallardo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Luca! >>> >>> I seems like nobody is interested in this topic. I cannot believe it! >>> :-( >> >> Well, it's not really related to Cocoon... Cocoon ships with Jetty for >> its "build run" environment, nothing that I would run on a production >> (or even development server). > > The point here is how we can get most from Jetty. I know that Cocoon is > not Jetty, but including Jetty into Cocoon is promoting the use of Jetty. Antonio, no, you got it all around! :-) :-) Including Jetty in Cocoon is promoting the use of Cocoon! I explain, you donwload Cocoon, and now it's quite a big fella, the CVS checkout, tarred and gzipped is something around the lines of 28 megabytes. If to play around with it, and see that you like it, you have to download another package, the servlet container, which is an EXTRA 6.5 megabytes of tar.gz in case of tomcat, or 5.7 megabytes in case of Jetty (not much difference in the "official" distributions, huh?) you'll get _severely_ upset, also because, considering that once you've downloaded it, you have to figure out HOW you're going to make the two work together. And this ONLY to "try out" cocoon, and explore its beauty. Now, I believe that including a shrinked out version of Jetty with only the functionality we need, a pre-configured environment, and the ease to invoke "./cocoon.sh" and have it running is worth an extra 500 kilobytes of jar. Note, in cocoon we embed a very restricted edition of Jetty, only the core JAR, not all that comes with it, the size is one thenth of the ENTIRE distribution... Jetty is designed to be embeddable, and allows us to show our users the incredible functionality of Cocoon, increasing slightly our download size. In the documentation, nowhere, you'll see that Jetty is the "preferred" way of running Cocoon. > Many people think about that (please check the mail to this thread before > yours). When you started talking about Jetty, Tomcat was a silent standard > for people using Cocoon. Everybody recommend you the use the Tomcat. Now > we are promoting Jetty. We (this group) are _not_ promoting Jetty, we're _using_ it... I (Pier Fumagalli, good friend of Greg Wilkins, Jetty's author) am promoting it because it had several advantages in my own environment over Tomcat. I (Pier Fumagalli, working for VNU) use Jetty in production on http://www.vnuservices.co.uk/ and am extremely pleased with it. I (Pier Fumagalli, member of the Cocoon community) am fully aware that Cocoon must show off its potentiality to users by embedding a servlet container, but am aware of, and promote, that Cocoon _must_ run on ALL (most) Servlet containers and that this is one of our main goals. > I said OK! You showed us the following gain over > Tomcat: > > Smaller! (I agree) > Faster! (I cannot currently agree. :-( ) > > I was trying to find some tips about how to get the most from Jetty, but > nowhere info. There are no books written about Jetty. Please note I am not > trying to attack Jetty. I believe this is the correct way. But as me many > people here dont see the gain of performance. Some people runs on Windows > and some runs Linux (like me). > > I want that this negative stuff go away. But for current purpose I am > seriously think in switching back to Tomcat. I need an application that > performance good in front of users. If the container is a big hairy > monster the users does not care. They only see the response time. I know > what you said in your mail. I will (maybe) do a very bad error in > switching back. But I dont see a solution in the near future. Can you > recommend some docs for trying to get the most from Jetty? Really this is > the purpose of this thread. :-) I cannot recommend any book, because there aren't any... I _know_ Jetty as well as Tomcat because I developed and hacked around BOTH containers, and know that in _my_ environment, there's no chance I'm going to use Tomcat. If you feel that Jetty doesn't work for you, fair enough, use Tomcat, as a member of this community all I can tell you is "YES, Cocoon runs perfectly with Tomcat"... >>> The question is: >>> What we gain if the applications run slow under Jetty?. >> >> That's your measurement... I've noticed a quite substantial performance >> increase... > > What plataform are you using? I am using Red Hat Linux 8.0, PostgreSQL, > and Cocoon 2.1 HEAD. The iron is: AMD Athlon XP 1.7, 512 MB, 60 GB. Several (VNU has currently 7 live servers and personally I manage another 4 machines): all around Sun or Apple hardware, with the occasional PC running Win2k and Linux... For what I need to do, with my configurations, I've seen improvements (and I can tell you how and why, if you want) using Jetty compared to other servlet containers (not only Tomcat, but WebSphere, Orion and ServletExec as well). >>> The only positive answer is that we "save" some cents in storage on >>> the hard disk, but since it is too cheap.... I think our saving are >>> less than 1 cents or low. :-D > > If continued in this rethoric, then if a HD of 60GB cost US$ 140.00 and > Jetty use 75MB less that Tomcat, we gain: 17.08 cents! ;-) Its better. You'll gain _MUCH_LESS_ than that... Tomcat is 6.5 megs, Jetty 5.7 when you download the official distributions. A note here that I want to make sure will remain in the mail archive: the version of Jetty shipping with Cocoon is a stripped-down embedded version, it is NOT the full distribution. The full distribution includes support for stuff like Java 1.4 NIO, which will increase performances under that environment, a lot of documentation, configuration snippets and examples: Jetty (whole) is not what we ship as an embedded solution for running Cocoon straight out of the downloaded archive. >> You're more than welcome to go and download Tomcat, and install the >> cocoon web-application onto it. I believe, though, it would be a _huge_ >> mistake if we thought about adding another 24 megs of code just to ship >> a servlet container with the Cocoon distribution... > > Sorry but I dont share this opinion. I dont need to download Tomcat it is > running since December without problems of any kind on a little more > capable machine as I described above. What I am trying to said is that > today saving 24 MB is nothing (less than 6 cents.). I think it would be a _big_ mistake if this community would put in CVS all jars required to run Tomcat, as we do with Jetty... The figure of 24 megs is probably not _that_ real (only the unpacked binary dist), but as an ex-Tomcat developer I can assure you that you can't strip out much without preventing functionality... That will increase severely our CVS size (by some megs), and also our future binary distributions... That's all I'm concerned about. >> That's my thought, at least... > > I and many people here want to have the same thought as you. Please show > us the shine! :-) The "shrine" for all Jetty world is in its mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED], if I'm not wrong! :-) :-) Pier
