Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-08-11 Thread Remy Maucherat
Some updates ... Remy Maucherat wrote: * Default global and per-host configurations: - conf/engine/host/context.xml.default - conf/engine/host/web.xml.default - conf/context.xml - conf/web.xml This will lead to the removal of the DefaultContext interface, since this will fully replace the

Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-08-11 Thread Bill Barker
- Original Message - From: Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks Some updates ... Remy Maucherat wrote: * Default global

Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-08-11 Thread Remy Maucherat
Bill Barker wrote: It certainly made Gump unhappy :). Ooops, yes, it's going to be a problem. It's quite hard to build my custom JAR :( Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL

Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-07-28 Thread Remy Maucherat
Remy Maucherat wrote: Bill Barker wrote: - Remove Deployer and DefaultContext. The new stuff looks like a better replacement. I did that but didn't commit yet. The management side for the default context would need to be redone (it's not very difficult, I think). The clustering will need updates,

RE: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-07-28 Thread Shapira, Yoav
-Original Message- From: Remy Maucherat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 6:27 AM To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks Remy Maucherat wrote: Bill Barker wrote: - Remove Deployer and DefaultContext. The new

Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-07-28 Thread Remy Maucherat
Shapira, Yoav wrote: Hi, You know, I've been meaning to address the Undeploy considered dangerous bugzilla item by adding a JavaScript confirmation dialog around the undeploy action in the HTML manager. Too bad I hadn't gotten around to it before your mishap ;( I would have clicked yes: I

Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-07-27 Thread Remy Maucherat
Bill Barker wrote: I'll volunteer for the admin webapp stuff. I enjoy deleting stuff from there ;-). It's at the end of my list right now, so I wont't get there for a while. I committed a few things: - The new deployer is getting there. Missing is the support for the manager webapp, but this

Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-07-26 Thread Costin Manolache
Remy Maucherat wrote: Costin Manolache wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: Costin Manolache wrote: Both difference and similarity :-). Eclipse ( osgi actually ) has a similar flat loader implementation, but with finer control over what is exported/imported and pretty strong versioning. In addition osgi

Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-07-26 Thread Remy Maucherat
I committed a few things: - The new deployer is getting there. Missing is the support for the manager webapp, but this won't be too hard to write. - I redid partially the naming. Now the NamingResource object is the main object, and Context is not polluted. My list is: - Update manager webapp,

Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-07-26 Thread Bill Barker
I'll volunteer for the admin webapp stuff. I enjoy deleting stuff from there ;-). - Original Message - From: Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector

Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-07-25 Thread Remy Maucherat
Costin Manolache wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: Costin Manolache wrote: Both difference and similarity :-). Eclipse ( osgi actually ) has a similar flat loader implementation, but with finer control over what is exported/imported and pretty strong versioning. In addition osgi supports permissions

Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-07-23 Thread Costin Manolache
Remy Maucherat wrote: Costin Manolache wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: Costin Manolache wrote: Quick question - did you had any discussion on class loaders for 5.next? It's one area I'm playing with, I want to make sure I'm not going in oposite direction :-) I'll tweak the StandardCL to do a bit

Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-07-23 Thread Remy Maucherat
Shapira, Yoav wrote: * Default global and per-host configurations: - conf/engine/host/context.xml.default - conf/engine/host/web.xml.default - conf/context.xml - conf/web.xml This will lead to the removal of the DefaultContext interface, since this will fully replace the functionality (while being

Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-07-23 Thread Remy Maucherat
Costin Manolache wrote: Don't know what dependency injection is, but I hope the next spec won't invent yet another way to do configuration. Sorry for using hype words. I got contaminated, it can happen to anyone. I'll try to shake it off now. I apologise to the community for that, and I won't

Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-07-23 Thread Remy Maucherat
Costin Manolache wrote: Both difference and similarity :-). Eclipse ( osgi actually ) has a similar flat loader implementation, but with finer control over what is exported/imported and pretty strong versioning. In addition osgi supports permissions on importing packages. The reloading of

Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-07-23 Thread Costin Manolache
Remy Maucherat wrote: Costin Manolache wrote: Both difference and similarity :-). Eclipse ( osgi actually ) has a similar flat loader implementation, but with finer control over what is exported/imported and pretty strong versioning. In addition osgi supports permissions on importing packages.

[5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-07-22 Thread Remy Maucherat
I've had a few more feature ideas (actually, it's more tweaks and simple things than big development for the most part), and I'm refining the way I'll be implementing the new deployer. * Parse element Context (if context config file) in HostConfig, for className, path and docBase attributes.

RE: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-07-22 Thread Shapira, Yoav
Hola, * Redo naming resources configuration using setAllProperties rule to make the XML less verbose. Example: Resource name=bean/MyBeanFactory auth=Container type=com.mycompany.MyBean factory=org.apache.naming.factory.BeanFactory bar=23/ I personally really like this

Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-07-22 Thread Costin Manolache
Quick question - did you had any discussion on class loaders for 5.next? It's one area I'm playing with, I want to make sure I'm not going in oposite direction :-) BTW - another feature idea would be to extend the JMX configuration into the webapps, i.e. allow jmx apps to view and configure

Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-07-22 Thread Remy Maucherat
Shapira, Yoav wrote: Hola, * Redo naming resources configuration using setAllProperties rule to make the XML less verbose. Example: Resource name=bean/MyBeanFactory auth=Container type=com.mycompany.MyBean factory=org.apache.naming.factory.BeanFactory bar=23/ I

Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-07-22 Thread Remy Maucherat
Costin Manolache wrote: Quick question - did you had any discussion on class loaders for 5.next? It's one area I'm playing with, I want to make sure I'm not going in oposite direction :-) I'll tweak the StandardCL to do a bit the same as the WebappCL (ie, try to make it faster). I'll also

Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-07-22 Thread Costin Manolache
Remy Maucherat wrote: Costin Manolache wrote: Quick question - did you had any discussion on class loaders for 5.next? It's one area I'm playing with, I want to make sure I'm not going in oposite direction :-) I'll tweak the StandardCL to do a bit the same as the WebappCL (ie, try to make it

Re: re: [5.next] progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-07-22 Thread CDZone
THIS IS AN AUTOMATED RESPONSE FROM CDZONE Thank you for contacting us. If your enquiry is covered by the list below please visit our web site at http://www.cdzone.co.uk/accounts where you can: * Check your order status - we are unable to provide any more detailed information about

Re: [5.next] Progress, more ideas and native connector benchmarks

2004-07-22 Thread Remy Maucherat
Costin Manolache wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: Costin Manolache wrote: Quick question - did you had any discussion on class loaders for 5.next? It's one area I'm playing with, I want to make sure I'm not going in oposite direction :-) I'll tweak the StandardCL to do a bit the same as the

RE: [5.next] Progress

2004-07-17 Thread Filip Hanik \(lists\)
the fragments of data sent across the wire, so that we don't take up too much RAM. Let me put together a todo list for review next week! Filip -Original Message- From: Remy Maucherat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:11 PM To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: Re: [5.next

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-07-17 Thread Remy Maucherat
Filip Hanik (lists) wrote: hi Remy, Time will open up in a week or so. And yes, I am wide open to any ideas. My personal feeling about the farm deployer, is that it would work exactly like auto deployment to Tomcat, and maybe just an entry in web.xml makes it send to other servers. Yes for the

RE: [5.next] Progress

2004-07-17 Thread Filip Hanik \(lists\)
, 2004 1:05 PM To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: Re: [5.next] Progress Filip Hanik (lists) wrote: hi Remy, Time will open up in a week or so. And yes, I am wide open to any ideas. My personal feeling about the farm deployer, is that it would work exactly like auto deployment to Tomcat, and maybe

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-07-16 Thread Endre Stølsvik
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Remy Maucherat wrote: | Jess Holle wrote: | Just a note: | | Please allow the anti-locking stuff to be skipped on Windows as well. | [Some of us value performance over deployment convenience.] | | Yes, of course. In production, many people don't use hot deployment (it |

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-07-15 Thread Remy Maucherat
My updated TODO. So I'll do the deployer next, followed by trying to optimize startup time. Then, there's tweaking. Filip, do you have time to refactor the clustering soon ? I think we should tweak your farming feature as well, as it should likely be done the way the manager servlet is

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-07-15 Thread Jess Holle
Remy Maucherat wrote: My updated TODO. So I'll do the deployer next, followed by trying to optimize startup time. Then, there's tweaking. Filip, do you have time to refactor the clustering soon ? I think we should tweak your farming feature as well, as it should likely be done the way the

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-07-15 Thread Remy Maucherat
Jess Holle wrote: Just a note: Please allow the anti-locking stuff to be skipped on Windows as well. [Some of us value performance over deployment convenience.] Yes, of course. In production, many people don't use hot deployment (it doesn't give good enough QoS right now, IMO). - Possibly

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-07-15 Thread Jess Holle
Remy Maucherat wrote: Jess Holle wrote: Just a note: Please allow the anti-locking stuff to be skipped on Windows as well. [Some of us value performance over deployment convenience.] Yes, of course. In production, many people don't use hot deployment (it doesn't give good enough QoS right now,

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-07-07 Thread Jess Holle
Remy Maucherat wrote: Jess Holle wrote: Though I also really like Java 5's [yep, another neat numbering change from Sun :-)] built-MBeans for JVM monitoring, I'd *really* like to see a JSR 160 solution in Tomcat that works in Java 1.4.x and Java 1.5 (aka 5). Is this the plan/hope? At a high

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-07-07 Thread Remy Maucherat
Jess Holle wrote: I'll play with this as I have time, but I'll be doing the same sort of thing with our own app first. As I see it (and I could be offbase, of course, as I've not had time to code this), one just needs a pluggable SPI sort of interface responsible for: 1. A singleton

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-07-07 Thread Remy Maucherat
Jess Holle wrote: Though I also really like Java 5's [yep, another neat numbering change from Sun :-)] built-MBeans for JVM monitoring, I'd *really* like to see a JSR 160 solution in Tomcat that works in Java 1.4.x and Java 1.5 (aka 5). Is this the plan/hope? At a high level it does not look

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-07-07 Thread Jess Holle
Remy Maucherat wrote: Jess Holle wrote: I'll play with this as I have time, but I'll be doing the same sort of thing with our own app first. As I see it (and I could be offbase, of course, as I've not had time to code this), one just needs a pluggable SPI sort of interface responsible for:

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-07-07 Thread Remy Maucherat
Jess Holle wrote: In my case even with 1.5 I need a pluggable (2) from above. Why? Because I need to work with port ranges and grab the first free port (with MBeans then proxied to a daemon with a consistent port #). 1.5 has no automatic machinery for this as best I can tell. It's true that

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-07-07 Thread Jess Holle
Remy Maucherat wrote: Jess Holle wrote: In my case even with 1.5 I need a pluggable (2) from above. Why? Because I need to work with port ranges and grab the first free port (with MBeans then proxied to a daemon with a consistent port #). 1.5 has no automatic machinery for this as best I can

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-07-07 Thread Peter Rossbach
Hello Jess, I have made a test with MX4J 2.0.1 and JSR 160 Connector. See my patches http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29259 Testet with MC4J Console and works very well. regards Peter Jess Holle schrieb: Remy Maucherat wrote: Jess Holle wrote: In my case even with 1.5 I need a

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-07-06 Thread Jess Holle
- Possibly require JDK 1.5 (cleaner code, annotations, integrated JMX and JMX remote, etc) I have made prototype for mx4J JSR 160 support it looks very nice. Can't we refactor the ServerLifecycleListener also? http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29259 No, that listener needs to go

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-07-02 Thread Remy Maucherat
Jeanfrancois Arcand wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: My upcoming change list: - Attempt to redo a bit the deployer: * remove the CL code which is there to avoid JAR locking (or at least allow disabling this feature for non-Windows OSes); when enabling anti locking code, move

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-07-02 Thread David Rees
Remy Maucherat wrote, On 7/2/2004 2:13 AM: Jeanfrancois Arcand wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: Speaking of which, does anyone know any OSes (besides Windows) which lock files ? NFS sometimes lock file (I did see a similar problem with Solaris) Thanks for the tip. I'll code in Windows by default, and

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-07-01 Thread Jeanfrancois Arcand
Remy Maucherat wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: My upcoming change list: - Attempt to redo a bit the deployer: * remove the CL code which is there to avoid JAR locking (or at least allow disabling this feature for non-Windows OSes); when enabling anti locking code, move everything to a temp deploy

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-06-30 Thread Peter Rossbach
Hello, I have start a Server saved implementation. - Externalize configuration saving out of StandardServer features: * splitt implementation from StandardServer class * refactor the current save methods to some helper classes * every save element from server.xml dialect has it own save

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-06-30 Thread Remy Maucherat
Peter Rossbach wrote: Hello, I have start a Server saved implementation. - Externalize configuration saving out of StandardServer features: * splitt implementation from StandardServer class * refactor the current save methods to some helper classes * every save element from server.xml

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-06-30 Thread Filip Hanik - Dev
PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 8:47 AM Subject: Re: [5.next] Progress Peter Rossbach wrote: Hello, I have start a Server saved implementation. - Externalize configuration saving out of StandardServer features: * splitt implementation from StandardServer class

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-06-30 Thread Peter Rossbach
Hey Remy, OK, I am do my best that the save factory implementation work at weekend. s. comments... Regards Peter Remy Maucherat schrieb: Peter Rossbach wrote: Hello, I have start a Server saved implementation. - Externalize configuration saving out of StandardServer features: * splitt

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-06-30 Thread Remy Maucherat
Peter Rossbach wrote: Hey Remy, OK, I am do my best that the save factory implementation work at weekend. A good patch is better than a rushed patch ;) I'm so tired of Windows right now ... But few of the developers wan't work at linux :-\ ... Yes, but the fact that M$ failed to address core

Re: [5.next] Progress

2004-06-30 Thread Remy Maucherat
Remy Maucherat wrote: My upcoming change list: - Attempt to redo a bit the deployer: * remove the CL code which is there to avoid JAR locking (or at least allow disabling this feature for non-Windows OSes); when enabling anti locking code, move everything to a temp deploy folder where

[5.next] Progress

2004-06-28 Thread Remy Maucherat
My upcoming change list: - Attempt to redo a bit the deployer: * remove the CL code which is there to avoid JAR locking (or at least allow disabling this feature for non-Windows OSes); when enabling anti locking code, move everything to a temp deploy folder where everything will be referenced