>The comments regarding applets have nothing to do with C or JNI. Again I'm
>trying to say that applets do not make sense in the context of HTML. It's
>not Java's fault, it's just how things are.
I don't see how this is true. HTTP is supposed to be a stateless, object-
oriented protocol which
Message-
> From: Marcel Ruff [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 17 February 1999 19:45
> To: Robert Ritchy; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: JavaLinux for servlets, who to make templates?
>
> Hi
>
> you wrote about servlets and html-templates.
> What p
John;
Why are you arguing with Steve ? Isn't he one of the people porting
1.2 to linux ? Let it go, the last thing we need is to have the porters
wasting time in this insipid thread.
You made your points, let's just leave it at that !!!
If you need to discuss your views even more, go to
comp.l
Chris Huebsch wrote:
> AFAIK unix doesn't support real threads.
Are you sure you want to make such a generalization about Unix?
I've got a couple of books that cover threads programming on Solaris.
Is there something "unreal" about Solaris ( or UnixWare ) threads?
--
wYRd.:|:[EMAIL PROTECTED
My original posting (entitled Java-linux enthusiasts) was about
categorizing
Java developers as belonging to one or more groups of users of
particular
platforms. I mentioned servlets in passing. I had no intention of
starting
a debate on servlets.
Now, why don't we stop bickering about whether Pe
On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 07:23:04PM -0800, Steve Byrne wrote:
> I'm sorry, but all I saw from your sudden burst of postings was anti-Java.
Perhaps you would realize that I did not start this thread?
I was replying to a message that stated:
> 4. Linux evangelists : Linux is the future. Java is
esday, February 17, 1999 11:09 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: JavaLinux for servlets
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 01:17:43AM -0800, Steve Byrne wrote:
>
> > >
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Nathan Meyers wrote:
> Whoa... how did this discussion suddenly become religious?
Whenever you mention a foreign language in a mailing list devoted to a
certain language, it *always* becomes religious.
Brett W. McCoy
http:/
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: JavaLinux for servlets
On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 01:17:43AM -0800, Steve Byrne wrote:
> > But what techincal advantage do they really give? Java is slower, uses
more
> > system resources, etc.
>
>
On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 12:39:57PM -0700, Jeff Galyan wrote:
> Pardon me, but you appear to be the ONLY person actually using mod_perl
> or FastCGI in a production environment.
I know of multiple organizations using mod_perl in a production environment.
If memory serves, hotmail is one, but th
Pardon me, but you appear to be the ONLY person actually using mod_perl
or FastCGI in a production environment.
As for my assumptions being "flawed", that would mean that the
developers at Java Software (formerly JavaSoft) don't know what they're
talking about either, nor do the course developer
> Okay, time for me to step into the fray.
>
> Here's how this works:
>
No, that is how one way works...
If you run Apache using either mod_perl, pyapache(aka mod_python) or
FastCGI then the server does NOT spawn a new process for the cgi
script. It passes the request to the cgi script *which
OK, this is about the 6th or 7th time I've said this and STILL people are
ignoring it.
Your whole argument is based on a flawed premise: that with CGI, a new
process must be started for each request. This is plain and simply NOT
correct. I have pointed this out time and time again.
Any benchma
Can we PLEASE stop this inane thread? It's pointless. Some people like
Java for everything, some for certain things, others for nothing at all.
I don't see what those people are doing on this list and I don't see how
any of this is relevant to Java on Linux. You don't like Swing? Fine.
Don't u
Okay, time for me to step into the fray.
Here's how this works:
When a webserver (let's say Apache) gets a request from a client to run
a traditional CGI, the server spawns a new process *independent* of
itself. If the process is a Perl process, then it has the overhead of
initialization, readin
On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 10:37:53AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 09:51:51AM +0100, Chris Huebsch wrote:
>
> I know that Java is a VM, bytecode, etc. What I'm trying to say is that
> this is irrelevant -- HTML and the Web are simply the wrong paradigm for
> trying to deploy
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>*
> I have explained the areas in which I feel Java has an advantage
> over other languages -- for example, development of large-scale
> client GUIs.
Yeah and you're wrong. Java sucks big time as a GUI frontend. (Just
check out a fairly large system like
You are correct, Alex. Both Solaris and Linux support "real" threads, as do
several other Unix OSs. We can go into detail if need be, but I hope we can
spare the list that :-)
On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 01:32:38PM +0300, Alex Romadinoff wrote:
> >AFAIK unix doesn't support real threads. For new r
On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 09:51:51AM +0100, Chris Huebsch wrote:
> The first is a "non-java-at-all" Server. It has to create a new process
> when a request arives. Where? The system is almost at the limit? It is
NO.
I keep saying this and apparently nobody is listening.
Let me give you URLs then
On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 01:17:43AM -0800, Steve Byrne wrote:
> > But what techincal advantage do they really give? Java is slower, uses more
> > system resources, etc.
>
> John, if you don't like Java, can you please tell us why you feel it's
> necessary to clog this mailing list with your an
Wht?
Alex Romadinoff wrote:
>
> >AFAIK unix doesn't support real threads. For new requests a new instance
>
> ?
> >of the CGI is created with fork() or something like that? Now imagine a
> >server with a load
>AFAIK unix doesn't support real threads. For new requests a new instance
?
>of the CGI is created with fork() or something like that? Now imagine a
>server with a load around 99%.
Are you sure ?
What about 'clone
John Goerzen writes:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 04:34:03PM -0800, Kevin Hester wrote:
>
> >
> > > I would certainly not use Java for CGI. libapache-mod-perl, FastCGI, etc.
> > if necessary.
> >
> > I'd definitely encourage anyone to use servlets with wild abandon. So easy
> > and clean
Hello,
let me contribute a word or two to this discussion...
John Goerzen wrote:
>
> This is not really the point. The point is that for a heavily-loaded
> server, even a small difference in performance can make a tremendous
> difference in the system -- possibly the difference between running
Hi
you wrote about servlets and html-templates.
What possibilities are there to make html-templates
and where is there a good parser to build the final html file
from the template?
thanks, Marcel
--
Marcel Ruff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.lake.de/home/lake/swand/
On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 06:10:02PM -0700, Robert Ritchy wrote:
> In addition to the above - portability. I just finished a complete a servlet
> solution for a BIG company on my dinky pentium 75 linux laptop (apache/jrun). The
> installation on their site (Solaris/NES/JRun Pro) was MINIMAL with
Whoa... how did this discussion suddenly become religious?
I daresay the readership of this group is here because they see a future
for Java beyond its current problems. As a fan of both Java and Perl, I
have absolutely no need to resolve the which-is-faster-and-better
question once and for all;
On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 08:03:26PM -0500, Daniel W. Dulitz x108 wrote:
> John, you wonder about the technical advantages of Java. Java is all
> about balancing easy to write and easy to read code against runtime
> performance. Think C versus assembly language. And the real question
> is, "Is t
On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 07:49:18PM -0500, David Harvill wrote:
> Overall, the servlets do not use more system resources. CGI has to spawn
> an entire new process (with full memory overhead) for each incoming
> request. Java starts up the process (and memory overhead) only once, and
> simply giv
David Harvill wrote:
> Overall, the servlets do not use more system resources. CGI has to spawn
> an entire new process (with full memory overhead) for each incoming
> request. Java starts up the process (and memory overhead) only once, and
> simply gives out a new Thread to handle the request
Kevin Hester writes:
> John Goerzen writes:
> > I would certainly not use Java for CGI. libapache-mod-perl, FastCGI, etc.
> > if necessary.
>
> I'd definitely encourage anyone to use servlets with wild abandon. So easy
> and clean - I haven't had to write CGI cruft in over a year. In exchange
Overall, the servlets do not use more system resources. CGI has to spawn
an entire new process (with full memory overhead) for each incoming
request. Java starts up the process (and memory overhead) only once, and
simply gives out a new Thread to handle the requesting.
-dave
On Tue, 16 Feb 199
On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 04:34:03PM -0800, Kevin Hester wrote:
>
> > I would certainly not use Java for CGI. libapache-mod-perl, FastCGI, etc.
> if necessary.
>
> I'd definitely encourage anyone to use servlets with wild abandon. So easy
> and clean - I haven't had to write CGI cruft in over a
> I would certainly not use Java for CGI. libapache-mod-perl, FastCGI, etc.
if necessary.
I'd definitely encourage anyone to use servlets with wild abandon. So easy
and clean - I haven't had to write CGI cruft in over a year. In exchange
for servlets I have a logical/maintainable tree of serv
34 matches
Mail list logo
