Yaroslav, you've made great work with the patch, but honestly, which real-world application uses hunderds of megabytes of jsps?
that just doesn't make sense... regards Leon P.S. don't want to be offending, but i just can't find a single use-case... On 3/7/06, Yaroslav Sokolov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, I can make the next conclusions: > > 1. Tomcat eats resources on first opening of any jsp page and never returns > them back - servlets just are never unloaded. > 2. As it happens in all the versions of Tomcat, there are many jsps, not > meeting requirements > of the specification (no destroy() method when there is some useful data in > fields) but well working under Tomcat. > 3. We do not want to change this situation ( -> I shall not even try to send > any better patch here :-\ (but I will ;-) ) ) > > One more conclusion - if all the jsp content of our web site does not fit in > memory, we > should buy more memory. Else we must not use jsp technology in all the > pages. We should choose > something other than jsp, for example velocity, SSI,... > > P.S. by the way, when web application is unloaded such bad jsps lose data > anyway. > > On 06/03/06, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Starting is different from stopping. > > > > Yes, the spec allows unloading - but in reality most JSPs and servlets > > can't deal well with that. And the argument that it is optional > > doesn't work - in many cases the person who writes the servlet/jsp is > > not the same as the person who is running the production server or > > does the configuration tunning. > > > > There are subtle bugs that may show up when this feature would be > > enabled - people doing the config might be tempted to reduce memory > > use, and this would result in extremely hard to reproduce and debug > > problems. > > > > By 'spec compliance' I mean more 'compatibility with the existing spec > > _and_ the current usage of the spec'. The later is IMO more important > > in many cases than the letter or any interpretation of the spec. > > > > Costin > > > > On 3/6/06, Yaroslav Sokolov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 04/03/06, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Costin Manolache wrote: > > > > > But it's a separate issue - I agree that unloading unused jsps is > > the > > > > > most important. > > > > > > > > The recommended production usage (= optimal) of JSPs is when they are > > > > precommpiled, which means that the Jasper servlet is not used, and the > > > > JSPs are plain servlets. Their lifecycle is then identical to the > > > > lifecycle of servlets. > > > > > > > > > I do not see any reason, why different servlets could not have different > > > life cycles. > > > Even more, the last sentence is in contrary to current implementation - > > > some servlets can be loaded not on demand, but on starting of a web > > > application. > > > So, their life cycle has already been _not_ identical to the life cycle > > of > > > other servlets. > > > > > > > > > I understand the Jasper servlet is junk, and is a testing ground for bad > > > > ideas, though (ex: the background compilation thread, and now this). > > > > > > > > Rémy > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > Yaroslav Sokolov. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Regards, > Yaroslav Sokolov. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
