On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 10:25:48 -0500, Vy Ho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thank you both for the information. I see it very clear now. I would > like to add my opinion on this though. For the case of serving static > content, if performance gain is significant, it would be the right way > to move to new io (just for static content portion). The reason is > this: as Tomcat gets more complete and widespread, the missing part is > ease of use. Having to install Apache and Tomcat obviously is not a > convienient thing to do for many people, especially new users. Learning > both obviously a steeper learning curve than one of them. Also, > maintaining them both just for static content does sound good. So, > besides providing a good graphical tool for configuration of Tomcat, > adding this seems to be the right thing to do. However, this is based > on the assumption that moving to new io is an easy thing to switch over > in Tomcat, and no other better alternative to improve this performance > (except the alternative and this method both improve the performance > greatly, then why not do both).
Static content has to be done in servlet-land as well, since filters can be used. If the site has a really huge amount of static content that may be separated from servlet API contracts (security, custom filters, etc), run a native webserver along with Tomcat. Note that static content is quite fast in Tomcat, so this is only needed in case of a really large load. -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx R�my Maucherat Developer & Consultant JBoss Group (Europe) S�RL xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
