I think it is broken in the sense that it does take a lot of time to get the app running when in development mode (and hosted mode), or at least more time that I would like it to.
I would welcome Jetty if that improves the performance. I have nothing specific to tomcat so far, so nothing should be broken. I actually use Jetty to deploy and test the application quickly in web mode. On Oct 14, 3:44 am, "Fred Janon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I use Tomcat for all our customer deployments and as a server to host the > development. If Tomcat is used as the server for development, there are > probably less chances that something would not work when deployed. I am not > sure of how popular is Jetty for real deployments compared to Tomcat, but I > have the feeling that Tomcat is ahead of Jetty. The startup time in > development mode is not really important for me, considering that there are > not that many cases where the server needs to be restarted. We don't use any > specific feature to a particular server, so Comet or continuations are not > in the balance. A few weeks ago I deployed successfully a GWT app on Tomcat > on a Windows server in about 30 mins. It still took me about 1 day to do the > same on Ubuntu, not because of GWT, but because of the way Tomcat is > configured by default on Ubuntu. Since it was the same server from beginning > to end, I had less to investigate. If it was another server engine, I would > have doubts on many more configuration issues. > > I am looking at the Widgets and the incubator and I wish a lot more work was > done there. Lots of customers and developers have "ext" on their lips, I'd > like to see more development in that area. The ScrollTable is hardly usable > at the moment. And some comments have been there with no > responsehttp://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/ScrollTable > > ========================================= > Comment by di.zhao <http://code.google.com/u/di.zhao/>, Oct 01, 2008 > > Hi, this is pretty nice widget. For those who is puzzled by the demo not > working in Firefox. I would suggest you to download the latest source code > and run it locally. The > ScrollTable<http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/ScrollTable>works > nicely in both Firefox/Chrome & IE. > > One question though, will column drag and drop be supported in the future? > Comment by [EMAIL PROTECTED]<http://code.google.com/u/@VRFTQFdRDxdFWAJ1/>, > Oct 07 (6 days ago) > > Please can someone update the docs and example. This is a brilliant widget > but in this state its almost unusable :( > > ========================================== > The more I use GWT and the more I love it, I think it's a brilliant idea > and implementation (I still have to find a bug in it!), but my priorities > are not in the server startup time. > > In summary the current use of Tomcat is pretty good, why change and spend > time and $$$ instead of spending time on other nice features? "If it ain't > broken, why fix it?" > > But if you are already all decided then... > > Fred > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 14:53, Jason Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I personally use Tomcat a lot more, mainly because it started as the > > reference > > implementation (though I know it no longer technically holds that > > position). The > > few times I've wanted to use Jetty I've had to switch back to Tomcat due to > > lack > > of system admin knowledge (ie: the various admins I was working with didn't > > know > > it). > > > That all said, I almost never use Hosted Mode, and system admins don't have > > to > > deal with a development time engine. Tomcat does have much better IDE > > support > > than Jetty, but since Hosted Mode is in charge of that, again it makes no > > real > > difference. When I do run Hosted Mode it's with the -noserver option. > > > So my end opinion: I think the change is a good idea, since the additional > > speed > > and lower memory load will encourage people trying out GWT for the first > > time. > > > Tim wrote: > > > jetty is awesome. > > > > In their latest drop (6.1.12.rc2 and rc3) there is a new feature in > > > maven-jetty-plugin to reload jetty on keyboard events in console > > > rather than automatically - it's indispensable when java GWT code > > > lives in the same source tree as the server side java code (just in > > > different package). And generally, maven jetty plugin is way better > > > than Cargo stuff that's used for Tomcat. > > > > Also, Jetty Continuations are just some much easier to work with than > > > Tomcat's Comet. No wonder they are including it into Servlet spec 3.0. > > > > Nothing particularly wrong with Tomcat but I think it's just lagging > > > in terms of developer productivity features behind Jetty. > > > > On Oct 13, 9:42 pm, "Michael Vogt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Hi Bruce. > > > >>> As part of this effort, we've all but decided to switch the hosted mode > > >>> embedded HTTP server from Tomcat to Jetty. Would this break you? (And > > if so, > > >>> how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We figure most people who > > really > > >>> care about the web.xml and so on are already using "-noserver" to have > > full > > >>> control over their server config. > > >> I personally would welcome Jetty. I'm using it as part of Grails right > > >> now. It's fast and easy going. > > > >> Cheers, > > >> Michael --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
