Thanks Chris!
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Christopher Schultz <
ch...@christopherschultz.net> wrote:
> > I guess, it's easy to add new directories to
> > TOMCAT/conf/catalina.properties file:
> >
> > common.loader=
> >
> ${catalina.base}/lib,${catalina.base}/lib/*.jar,${catalina.home}/lib,${catalina.home}/lib/*.jar
> >
> >
> >
> > to now read:
> >
> > common.loader=
> >
> ${catalina.base}/lib,${catalina.base}/lib/*.jar,${catalina.home}/lib,${catalina.home}/lib/*.jar,${catalina.base}/shared,${catalina.base}/shared/*.jar,${catalina.home}/shared,${catalina.home}/shared/*.jar
>
> just use shared.loader, which is I think what you're asking for.
> It's blank in a default configuration.
>
>
Yes, I missed that one :) that's what I had in mind.
> > What are you thoughts? Would it make sense to keep a separate
> > directory for shared libraries? Should we make it default - to
> > encourage others to create a directory if they want to.
>
> - -1
This is confusing and would be surprising if you hadn't intended to
> use this. The "shared" loader was disabled by default because nobody
> could figure out what the heck it was for and basically continually
> broke their own configurations using it. So, now, everything goes into
> either lib/ or the web application's WEB-INF/lib and everyone seems to
> be happy. One can always re-enable the shared loader if you know it
> exists, in which case you probably know what it's for and why you'd
> use it. (Hint: use of the shared loader almost never makes any sense).
>
>
Agreed, it might confusing. It's probably better idea to pack up your
libraries with your apps in WEB-INF/lib.
Why do shared loaders "almost never make any sense"? What kind of problems
did you have with shared.loader?
However, here's an (rare) example where that might be useful:
- one box with limited memory
- one tomcat instance hosting X (e.g. 10) applications
- all applications are using the same large shared libraries - e.g. 200MB
- you don't want to have a separate libraries for each application (your
PermGen space will grow significantly otherwise)
- it might make sense to move the shared libraries into shared folder (or
tomcat/lib)
Now, this architecture is probably not the greatest idea. I always strive
for the application/process isolation, i.e.
one-application-per-tomcat-instance - so I can have independent lifecycles
for my apps, but that requires more resources (memory,cpu) or even more
hardware.
> I like the current default configuration but I'm willing to entertain
> other ideas. I just don't like this one in particular (default to
> split configuration).
>
>
So, I do agree - keeping it how it is - is probably the best idea. There is
always an option for people that would like to configure that further.
Thanks!
Neven
PS. Apologies for the off-topic diversion :)
