I really believe that choice is a bad thing. I don't believe we should offer 2 options to a user. How are they supposed to decide? How are we supposed to guide them?
I'll grant you that there may (*may*) be some possible reason for a very advanced user to want to run 2 different web containers. I really believe this should be an advanced manual process (e.g. download Tomcat build, then deploy Jetty plan). I really really really don't want to encumber every user with both Jetty and Tomcat in order to support this dual-container feature. I really really really don't want to make it easy for a user to inadvertently or on a whim run both containers, such that every web-related question or bug report will require us to get the user to figure out what's actually running and what they deployed to and so on. Anyway, all that said, I agree that the console should support runing more than one web container, but I don't feel that's a priority for M5. The same is true for EJB, JMS, etc. It will require some thought on how we want to present things and a fair bit of work to revise the JSPs. Not a huge deal, but not something I feel the urge to spent time in in the short term. Do you think it's necessary for M5? Aaron On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, David Jencks wrote: > Right now, both jetty and tomcat are running in the standard server. > We can make it so only one starts by default fairly easily by changing > the config.list. The "tomcat" goal or setting the web container to > tomcat changes the ports each container uses by default, but both start > at the moment. > > However, if we ship both configurations, it is going to be very easy to > get 2 web containers running at once, whether on purpose or not, by > starting a configuration that is deployed to the "other" web container. > > I don't see a great deal of utility for running multiple web containers > in one geronimo server, but I'm not an end user. I certainly hesitate > to tell our end users that they will never want to do it. Since we > have the technical ability to do it I would prefer that the management > console support it in some way or at least not prevent it. > > > thanks > david jencks > >