On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, John Trollinger wrote: > 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. 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.
I run tomcat on my sharp Zaurus, using a J2ME VM - it's the developer edition, with about 16M heap ( out of 32 M RAM ). The whole installation is below 1.5M ( well, with crimson.jar taking a lot of space - but it can be replaced with a smaller parser ). I agree it is a bit bloated, and I hope 5.0 will fit in 512K. If people are too lazy to remove the stuff they don't need on a production site - we could easily provide a 'tomcat lazy edition'. Since most users are lazy developers, that's what the default release includes. Are you enabling all the modules that comes with Apache by default ? Or maybe all the possible modules ( mod_auth_ldap, mod_dav, etc ) ? Do you see any apache distribution that includes just part of the code, with the modules that Pier doesn't use left out ? Costin > > > > -----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]>
