[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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>
Even omitting personal comments from the rant (which I have to admit I share), you did a sooo impressive work on improving Tomcat HA-level during the 3.0-3.1-3.2-3.3 releases that I definitely trust you to help take Tomcat 5.0 to the next HA-level. On a side note, it would be really nice if Tomcat developers could STOP writing blanket FUD-style statements about whatever module / the container / etc when they didn't even care to review the code. Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
