Sigur�ur Reynisson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> From the user guide at
> http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/tomcat-3.2-doc/uguide/tomcat_ug.html
>
> 1. Tomcat is not as fast as Apache when it comes to static pages.
This is correct...
> 2. Tomcat is not as configurable as Apache.
I don't know about this... It depends on what you imply for "as configurable
as"... For my needs (and I would include 70% of the market) it is
configurable ENOUGH...
> 3. Tomcat is not as robust as Apache.
I've NEVER seen 4.0 crashing in stand alone mode since quite a long time. It
might still have bugs, but it is _very_ robust. To give you a proof, I am
installing a mailing list archive on Tomcat 4.0 standalone for all apache
mailing lists on nagoya.apache.org... I bet you 100$ it's not going to
crash.
> 4. There are many sites with long time investment in certain web servers,
> for example, sites that are using CGI scripts/Server API modules/perl/php...
CGI scripts are supported by 4.0 (thanks to the invaluable contribution of
Amy Roh), Perl works when it's used as a CGI (such as in BugZilla). For PHP,
that's true, you need to use a C-based web server...
> We cannot assume that all of them will want to ditch this legacy.
For sure... But _how_ many have so many requirements???
Pier
