First of all thank you for TomEE, I love the philosophy behind it. Actually I was forced to use an EE container due to recent incompatibilities of SEAM3. I was no more able to get things done with Tomcat only....
On the one hand I'll gain a lot of advantages using EE but on the other hand I feel quite confirmed that I ever tried to avoid the EE overhead. Let me give you some examples: - Startup-Time - Tomcat Seam2 Webapp: 25s - TomEE Seam3 Webapp 120s - Jars needed (with webapp included) - Tomcat Seam2 Webapp: 40MB - TomEE Seam3 Webapp: 60MB - Memory footprint? (I still have no facts) Maybe you could optimize the resource consumption a bit more e.g. to activate even more parts only when they are needed, ... . My first thought after installing the first TomEE on a hosted server was where to get a more powerful one.... I think you could catch a lot of Tomcat fans to come over if you would really use every small possibility to reduce overhead. Then you could even call it: - "only use what you need" container or - Bikini container or - No-fat container or - Container 0% Just one more thing: I didn't get the Tomcat shared classloader working. I was used it to put my application jars in a separate lib folder to get .war-files smaller. Deployment - especially remote - was a lot faster like this... -- View this message in context: http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Feedback-on-TomEE-1b2-tp4416895p4416895.html Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
