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
>
>
