[ANN] Apache Tomcat 8.5.14 available

[Mark Thomas]

The Apache Tomcat team announces the immediate availability of Apache
Tomcat 8.5.14.

Tomcat 8.x users should normally be using 8.5.x releases in preference
to 8.0.x releases.

Apache Tomcat 8 is an open source software implementation of the Java
Servlet, JavaServer Pages, Java Unified Expression Language, Java
WebSocket and Java Authentication Service Provider Interface for
Containers technologies.

Apache Tomcat 8.5.x is intended to replace 8.0.x and includes new
features pulled forward from the 9.0.x branch. The notable changes since
8.5.13 include:


- Correct a regression that broke JMX operations (including the Manager
  web application) if the operation took parameters

- Calls to isReady() no longer throw exceptions after timeouts for async
  servlets


Please refer to the change log for the complete list of changes:
http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-8.5-doc/changelog.html

Downloads:
http://tomcat.apache.org/download-80.cgi

Migration guides from Apache Tomcat 5.x, 6.x, 7.x and 8.0.x:
http://tomcat.apache.org/migration.html

Join us at TomcatCon in Miami for 3 days of Apache Tomcat content:
https://tomcat.apache.org/conference.html

Enjoy!

- The Apache Tomcat team

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org

[ANN] Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M20 available

[Mark Thomas]

The Apache Tomcat team announces the immediate availability of Apache
Tomcat 9.0.0.M20.

Apache Tomcat 9 is an open source software implementation of the Java
Servlet, JavaServer Pages, Java Unified Expression Language, Java
WebSocket and JASPIC technologies.

Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M20 is a milestone release of the 9.0.x branch and
has been made to provide users with early access to the new features in
Apache Tomcat 9.0.x so that they may provide feedback. The notable
changes compared to 9.0.0.M19 include:

- Correct a regression that broke JMX operations (including the Manager
  web application) if the operation took parameters

- Add JMX support for Tribes components

- Calls to isReady() no longer throw exceptions after timeouts for async
  servlets


Please refer to the change log for the complete list of changes:
http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-9.0-doc/changelog.html

Downloads:
http://tomcat.apache.org/download-90.cgi

Migration guides from Apache Tomcat 5.x, 6.x, 7.x and 8.x:
http://tomcat.apache.org/migration.html

Join us at TomcatCon in Miami for 3 days of Apache Tomcat content:
https://tomcat.apache.org/conference.html

Enjoy!

- The Apache Tomcat team

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org

Re: Fwd: Custom JNDIRealm with Configuration

[Felix Schumacher]

Am 13.04.2017 um 12:58 schrieb Lucas S. Silva:

Hi All,

I am implementing a custom JNDIRealm and I need to pass some
configurations to it.

I tried to pass the configuration via Real configuration



and in my code I define the setter and getter for
*configurationPattern* but when I debug it doesn't seems to
be set? I also need to add more parameters that may
not fit Realm.
Can I access Tomcat configuration from code?
Are you sure, that you are editing the correct file? What happens, when 
you add a log statement in your constructor?


And by the way, the debug parameter is not used anymore.

Regards,
 Felix



Thanks for the help in advance.

Cheers,
Lucas




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org

Re: sendFiles vs. compression

[Chris Gamache]

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Christopher Schultz <
ch...@christopherschultz.net> wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Chris,
>
> On 4/18/17 10:58 AM, Chris Gamache wrote:
> > Is there a way to create a split point where sendFile will handle
> > files of certain mime types (or all mime-types except for an
> > exclusion list of mime types) and/or of certain sizes while
> > compression will handle files of other mime-types and/or certain
> > sizes?
>
> You could configure a second DefaultServlet that matches specific
> patterns. You could also configure a "named" DefaultServlet and then
> use a Filter to decide if you want your CompressionDefaultServlet to
> handle your output versus your (likely "default") SendfileDefaultServlet
> .
>
Excellent suggestion. It's similar to the rewrite filter suggestion, but it
keeps web.xml simple which is one of my goals.


>
> > Both settings have a minimum file size that engages their mechanism
> > but to set up a division of labor I would think we would need all
> > of include/exclude and max/min for both sendfile() and compression.
> > Again, I could be missing something obvious by staring at the
> > problem too long.
>
> You could also pre-compress your static files.
>

I like that idea. It is a good way to take care of it in a targeted and
sane way.


>
> > @André and the rest of the listserv, In your opinions-- thinking
> > about the web site consumer's experience, and having to choose
> > either send sendfile() or compression-- is the juice worth the
> > squeeze so-to-speak keeping sendfile() and sending uncompressed
> > files, or is the better choice to enable compression at the expense
> > of direct static file access and save bandwidth?
>
> It really depends upon your use-case. If you have a lot of free CPU
> cycles, then using them instead of sendFile="true" will improve your
> overall throughput to the client.


> If you have a very CPU-intensive application (which most are NOT...
> most apps are just waiting around for a disk, database, etc. to
> respond) then maybe you want to be as CPU-efficient as possible and
> use sendFile="true".
>
> If you have a very data-heavy application (tons of bytes need to be
> sent back and forth to the client) or you have clients with very thin
> pipes (e.g. mobile), then compression might outweigh "efficiency" on
> the application server.
>

That pretty much sums it up, yea? ;)

I think the group consensus is to monitor the server CPU and use that as
the main factor in deciding whether to use compression or not.

I really appreciate your thoughts and the thoughts of the other responders.
I have a clear plan of attack now.


> - -chris
>
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:08 AM, André Warnier (tomcat)
> >  wrote:
> >
> >> On 18.04.2017 14:50, Chris Gamache wrote:
> >>
> >>> Using tomcat 8.0.43 ...
> >>>
> >>> I'm grappling with GZip compression options. Historically, I've
> >>> used a custom GZip filter and that's been fine for the most
> >>> part. If the file being served is under 50K the filter would
> >>> compress it in memory and send it out. If the file is over 50K,
> >>> it would connect the OutputStream to a GZipOutputStream rather
> >>> than compressing the whole thing in memory and then sending it
> >>> out from there. When that happens it doesn't send a
> >>> Content-Length header. This is fine for most browsers. Safari
> >>> has a problem with this and will decline to receive the file.
> >>> In looking at the GZip filter I've been using, it's kind-of
> >>> naive-- there must be a more intelligent compression option
> >>> built into tomcat by now, right?
> >>>
> >>> To enable compression, I set `compression="on"` in my
> >>>  element in my server.xml file. There is on
> >>> sticking point-- if sendFile is available (asynchronous
> >>> file-sending by the DefaultServlet using NIO) it will trump
> >>> compression by default. I can turn off sendFile, and browsers
> >>> report that they are receiving compressed files. So it seems
> >>> like an all-or-nothing situation where compression and sendFile
> >>> are mutually exclusive. There are minimum file size settings
> >>> for both options, but no max file size settings so I can't say
> >>> "use sendFile for files under 50K and compression for files
> >>> above 50K" because sendFile will always trump compression.
> >>>
> >>> I think the idea of sending out static files asynchronously is
> >>> fantastic. I also want my pages to load faster by sending less
> >>> data.
> >>>
> >>> I figure the smart people who work on tomcat know a whole lot
> >>> more about this stuff than I do. They must have had a reason to
> >>> prioritize sendFile over compression, or the expert tomcat
> >>> administrators have figured out a way to balance the two.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe I've been staring at the problem too long, but I can't
> >>> figure it out.
> >>>
> >>> So, is it advisable turn of sendFile to engage compression? Or,
> >>> is there a combination of 

Re: sendFiles vs. compression

[Chris Gamache]

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Mark H. Wood  wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 02:03:19PM -0400, Chris Gamache wrote:
> > I had any frame of reference to base a decision on, I wouldn't have asked
> > the question. Ask any front-end engineer what the single best thing to do
> > to make a user's experience better when accessing a single-page web
> > application, they will say "enable compression" so why it isn't turned on
> > by default was a mystery, and that it plays second fiddle to serving
> static
> > file from the file system in an efficient manner was a double mystery.
> >
> > Perhaps if my fellow tomcat users would share their thought processes in
> > their particular situations for selecting one method over the other, that
> > might help me look at my own situation and make a good decision.
>
> Well, why does one want to use sendfile()?  Why does one want to use
> compression?
>
> sendfile() can be more efficient on the server end, by reducing the
> number of context switches when sending large files:  one switch into
> kernel mode is all that is needed to get the file sent.  So if you
> have a lot of concurrent users and fairly large files, this economy
> might dominate the user experience.
>
> Gotcha. More files can be sent at once (and more efficiently).
We have only a few large files to transfer per client, and the rest is
client/server data chatter.


> OTOH compression can make more efficient use of lower-bandwidth links,
> because it sends fewer bits in fewer packets to accomplish the same
> task.  So if you have a lot of users on slow links then this economy
> might dominate the user experience.  Note that compression uses more
> CPU at both ends, so a server already running flat-out or a large
> community of low-powered clients may eat up any savings, and then
> some.
>
>
Got it. CPU on both client and server to consider.

We're not CPU bound ATM on our servers using our current naive GZipFilter,
so this is a consideration I will put into the hat.
We're going for shorter app load time, and bandwidth is our chief
consideration. Radio time is more power/dollar intensive than
(de)compression for mobile clients, and non-mobile clients won't probably
blink at decompressing 500kb of javascript and a few images and fonts.


> How to know which is most important?  Measure!  The simplest approach
> would be to try it each way and ask users how they experienced the
> result.  If you have a lot of information about the distribution of
> bandwidth and CPU power across your user community, the amount of
> data to be sent per request, and the shape of traffic over time, you
> can make some shrewd guesses, but in the end the best solution is the
> one that does the job best, and the only way to know that is to test
> and see.
>

Yes. Excellent advice. Thank you for your thoughtful response!



>
> --
> Mark H. Wood
> Lead Technology Analyst
>
> University Library
> Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis
> 755 W. Michigan Street
> Indianapolis, IN 46202
> 317-274-0749
> www.ulib.iupui.edu
>

Re: sendFiles vs. compression

[Christopher Schultz]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Chris,

On 4/18/17 10:58 AM, Chris Gamache wrote:
> Is there a way to create a split point where sendFile will handle
> files of certain mime types (or all mime-types except for an
> exclusion list of mime types) and/or of certain sizes while
> compression will handle files of other mime-types and/or certain
> sizes?

You could configure a second DefaultServlet that matches specific
patterns. You could also configure a "named" DefaultServlet and then
use a Filter to decide if you want your CompressionDefaultServlet to
handle your output versus your (likely "default") SendfileDefaultServlet
.

> Both settings have a minimum file size that engages their mechanism
> but to set up a division of labor I would think we would need all
> of include/exclude and max/min for both sendfile() and compression.
> Again, I could be missing something obvious by staring at the
> problem too long.

You could also pre-compress your static files.

> @André and the rest of the listserv, In your opinions-- thinking
> about the web site consumer's experience, and having to choose
> either send sendfile() or compression-- is the juice worth the
> squeeze so-to-speak keeping sendfile() and sending uncompressed
> files, or is the better choice to enable compression at the expense
> of direct static file access and save bandwidth?

It really depends upon your use-case. If you have a lot of free CPU
cycles, then using them instead of sendFile="true" will improve your
overall throughput to the client.

If you have a very CPU-intensive application (which most are NOT...
most apps are just waiting around for a disk, database, etc. to
respond) then maybe you want to be as CPU-efficient as possible and
use sendFile="true".

If you have a very data-heavy application (tons of bytes need to be
sent back and forth to the client) or you have clients with very thin
pipes (e.g. mobile), then compression might outweigh "efficiency" on
the application server.

- -chris

> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 9:08 AM, André Warnier (tomcat)
>  wrote:
> 
>> On 18.04.2017 14:50, Chris Gamache wrote:
>> 
>>> Using tomcat 8.0.43 ...
>>> 
>>> I'm grappling with GZip compression options. Historically, I've
>>> used a custom GZip filter and that's been fine for the most
>>> part. If the file being served is under 50K the filter would
>>> compress it in memory and send it out. If the file is over 50K,
>>> it would connect the OutputStream to a GZipOutputStream rather
>>> than compressing the whole thing in memory and then sending it
>>> out from there. When that happens it doesn't send a 
>>> Content-Length header. This is fine for most browsers. Safari
>>> has a problem with this and will decline to receive the file.
>>> In looking at the GZip filter I've been using, it's kind-of
>>> naive-- there must be a more intelligent compression option
>>> built into tomcat by now, right?
>>> 
>>> To enable compression, I set `compression="on"` in my
>>>  element in my server.xml file. There is on
>>> sticking point-- if sendFile is available (asynchronous
>>> file-sending by the DefaultServlet using NIO) it will trump
>>> compression by default. I can turn off sendFile, and browsers 
>>> report that they are receiving compressed files. So it seems
>>> like an all-or-nothing situation where compression and sendFile
>>> are mutually exclusive. There are minimum file size settings
>>> for both options, but no max file size settings so I can't say
>>> "use sendFile for files under 50K and compression for files
>>> above 50K" because sendFile will always trump compression.
>>> 
>>> I think the idea of sending out static files asynchronously is
>>> fantastic. I also want my pages to load faster by sending less
>>> data.
>>> 
>>> I figure the smart people who work on tomcat know a whole lot
>>> more about this stuff than I do. They must have had a reason to
>>> prioritize sendFile over compression, or the expert tomcat
>>> administrators have figured out a way to balance the two.
>>> 
>>> Maybe I've been staring at the problem too long, but I can't
>>> figure it out.
>>> 
>>> So, is it advisable turn of sendFile to engage compression? Or,
>>> is there a combination of settings that will let me best use
>>> them both?
>>> 
>>> 
>> For what it's worth : sendfile() is a way by which the (web)
>> application can just point the OS to a static file on disk, and
>> say "send this". And the sendfile logic in the OS takes care of
>> the rest, in the most efficient way possible for that OS, and the
>> call returns ok to your application right away, even possibly 
>> before the sendfile() action has completed. The sticky point here
>> is "a static file on disk". So if you want to send back a gzipped
>> file, then the only solution is to first create that gzipped
>> version as a file on disk, and then use sendfile() on that
>> gzipped version. And then, presumably, you'd want to "clean up"
>> these gzipped versions at some point. 

Re: sendFiles vs. compression

[Mark H. Wood]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 02:03:19PM -0400, Chris Gamache wrote:
> I had any frame of reference to base a decision on, I wouldn't have asked
> the question. Ask any front-end engineer what the single best thing to do
> to make a user's experience better when accessing a single-page web
> application, they will say "enable compression" so why it isn't turned on
> by default was a mystery, and that it plays second fiddle to serving static
> file from the file system in an efficient manner was a double mystery.
> 
> Perhaps if my fellow tomcat users would share their thought processes in
> their particular situations for selecting one method over the other, that
> might help me look at my own situation and make a good decision.

Well, why does one want to use sendfile()?  Why does one want to use
compression?

sendfile() can be more efficient on the server end, by reducing the
number of context switches when sending large files:  one switch into
kernel mode is all that is needed to get the file sent.  So if you
have a lot of concurrent users and fairly large files, this economy
might dominate the user experience.

OTOH compression can make more efficient use of lower-bandwidth links,
because it sends fewer bits in fewer packets to accomplish the same
task.  So if you have a lot of users on slow links then this economy
might dominate the user experience.  Note that compression uses more
CPU at both ends, so a server already running flat-out or a large
community of low-powered clients may eat up any savings, and then
some.

How to know which is most important?  Measure!  The simplest approach
would be to try it each way and ask users how they experienced the
result.  If you have a lot of information about the distribution of
bandwidth and CPU power across your user community, the amount of
data to be sent per request, and the shape of traffic over time, you
can make some shrewd guesses, but in the end the best solution is the
one that does the job best, and the only way to know that is to test
and see.

-- 
Mark H. Wood
Lead Technology Analyst

University Library
Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis
755 W. Michigan Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202
317-274-0749
www.ulib.iupui.edu


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature