On Saturday, March 8, 2003, at 06:27 PM, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 7/3/03 18:14, "Antonio Gallardo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Antonio Gallardo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Luca!
I seems like nobody is interested in this topic. I cannot believe it!
:-(
Well, it's not really related to Cocoon... Cocoon ships with Jetty for
its "build run" environment, nothing that I would run on a production
(or even development server).
The point here is how we can get most from Jetty. I know that Cocoon is
not Jetty, but including Jetty into Cocoon is promoting the use of Jetty.
Antonio, no, you got it all around! :-) :-) Including Jetty in Cocoon is
promoting the use of Cocoon! I explain, you donwload Cocoon, and now it's
quite a big fella, the CVS checkout, tarred and gzipped is something around
the lines of 28 megabytes.
If to play around with it, and see that you like it, you have to download
another package, the servlet container, which is an EXTRA 6.5 megabytes of
tar.gz in case of tomcat, or 5.7 megabytes in case of Jetty (not much
difference in the "official" distributions, huh?) you'll get _severely_
upset, also because, considering that once you've downloaded it, you have to
figure out HOW you're going to make the two work together.
there is an old maxim about how you cannot please everybody. I for one am not pleased with Jetty because I now have two containers sitting on my machine. how different is typing .\catalina run from .\cocoon servlet? The fact that you have to copy a war file from your build directory to the webapp directory? Jetty (or any other bundled web container) would make sense for those developers who have no knowledge of servlet containers and are interested only in cocoon. Personally I just want a war file.
In the documentation, nowhere, you'll see that Jetty is the "preferred" way
of running Cocoon.
On a humorous note, I guess that what Microsoft said about IE when they bundled that browser ;-)
Cheers Suhail
