So ... rather than something small and fiesty ("Tomcat") perhaps the name
should be mega-gozo-zilla-raptor-cat, or similar?Truth in advertising. :) On 4/25/06, Jess Holle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Remy Maucherat wrote: > [snip] > > It is completely irrelevant compared to the memory usage of a single > > "modern" web application, and at the same time it provides a useful > > monitoring feature without being intrusive coding wise. Sure, we could > > use standard MBeans, but the code would then be a mess. I don't > > understand the point of bothering with this sort of stuff when there's > > so little benefit. > Despite my tone in my previous e-mail on this thread, I tend to agree > with Remy that the Tomcat folk have bigger fish to fry. An extra 10MB > of overhead is not the top priority for most Tomcat users. > [snip] > All the same, the MBeans generally do what's needful in Tomcat and I'd > thus hate to see any "cleanup" in this area take precendence over "real" > stuff. > > If you want the smallest web container in terms of memory usage or > > size, I think you should not be using Tomcat. Tomcat is more geared > > towards speed, GC friendliness and feature completeness than memory > > usage. > Agreed. >
