> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> > > Yes sure. I think the best would be not to unpack the WARs (it's a lot
> > > cleaner).
> >
> > +1, as long as we can keep performance reasonable.
>
> Well, memory's cheap. You can always just read the whole WAR in.
Performance should be good with WARs (ie, you shouldn't notice anything
really different). On startup, a table of contents of the WAR is built
(otherwise, browsing isn't possible).
> Then you'll get great performance. :)
> As a middle ground, it probably wouldn't be too horrible to
> implement a ClassLoader that cached frequently-accessed resources from
> the WAR.
The classloader loads stuff using URL connections pointing to the directory
context which then accesses the WAR. The caching is done at the directory
context layer.
There is no caching of the content yet. Only the metadata is cached right
now (but content caching can be added fairly easily (although I don't know
if it would be that useful, since the OS content caching is quite
efficient - I suggest adding that only if benchmark figures are too low).
Remy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
