On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, John Trollinger wrote:
> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 13:19:40 -0400
> From: John Trollinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 'Tomcat Developers List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)
>
> Although Pier is sometimes harsh with his words he does have some valid
> points. I would be nice for tomcat to be somewhat modular so if all you
> want is a servlet engine just get those components.
I'd say both the 3.3 and 4.0/4.1 architectures are already pretty modular
-- is there something specific that you consider monolithic that should be
factored apart? Or is it just that finer-grained build.xml targets would
do what you want?
> This also goes with
> moving the CVS repositories.. so you can get only the modules you want
> and build the parts of tomcat that you need with out all the overhead.
>
The Apache infrastructure folks (well, at least some of them) tend to
frown on multiple CVS repositories for a single project, and they've got a
point -- the number of CVS repositories has nothing to do with how many
deliverable distributions you can create from them. For example, the
jakarta-commons and jakarta-taglibs repositories each host lots of
independently released packages, while a single Tomcat release
combines code from 5-10 independent repositories.
Craig
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 1:07 PM
> To: Tomcat Developers List
> Subject: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)
>
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
>
> > >> Pier could you detail what should be a Tomcat HA, and how
> > >> it could fit in TC 5.0 proposal ?
> > >
> > >As far as I can remember it was voted -1...
> >
> > What about TC 5.0 with HA capability ?
>
> TC5.0 will have a 'higher availability' then 4.1 which is better
> than 4.0. Same goes for 3.3 versus 3.2, and so on.
>
> <rant -stop reading if you're not interested in flames -->
>
> I am trying as hard as possible to remain calm and on the
> subject when discussing with 'angry' Pier - but the FUD he
> is using is unbelievable.
>
> He can't use tomcat4.0 in production ? Maybe he's trying to
> do that with mod_webapp ( with no load balancing AFAIK, and
> 'auto configuration' ). And he complains about features -
> well, Apache is full of features, and most people know how
> to not enable the modules that they don't need on a production
> site.
>
> Now he proposes a "HA tomcat" - as if all our efforts in
> so far has been in adding useless features and nobody else
> cares about HA. Well, if you would pay attention a lot of
> work is beeing put in improving the lb ( an essential factor
> for HA ), in adding management ( guess what - JMX is not only
> for configuration, but also for getting runtime info and notifications
> ),
> and in improving the low-level objects to beter deal with the load
> ( that's coyote ) plus for 5.0 a simpler core that would allow
> more modularity ( coyote again ).
>
> And the solution he proposes: removing 'useless' features like
> jasper or JMX.
>
> Well, I know quite a few people who managed to get tomcat in
> production on a variety of sites ( including very large loads).
> Even with tomcat3.2 - a generation behind the current 3.3 and 4.0.
> They do that using load balancing and customizing the installation.
> Unfortunately Pier's tomcat4.0 doesn't support load balancing,
> and it seems he's having problems with the admin module of 4.1.
> Well, send a patch - or just disable the offending module in
> your code.
>
> Tomcat out-of-box is feature full and more intended for developers
> ( who greatly outnumber the 'production sites'). If you read
> the 5.0 proposal, it allows ( or includes ) the ability to
> release customized tomcats.
>
> Of course, nobody stops Pier on working on whatever he wants -
> a -1 means he can't do it in the main branch and he can't use
> the name 'tomcat', but the proposal/ area has allwasy been open.
> If he can get a 'higher availability' than we'll get with 5.0 -
> great, we'll all be happy.
>
> But now Pier treatens he'll just leave us oprhapns ( without
> a father). I certainly hope he's not serious with that, and if he
> does - I hope he'll return. And in the meantime he may try to
> learn to be a bit more polite and modest - and control his
> frustrations.
>
> </rant>
>
> Costin
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
