I use Tomcat for all our customer deployments and as a server to host the development. If Tomcat is used as the server for development, there are probably less chances that something would not work when deployed. I am not sure of how popular is Jetty for real deployments compared to Tomcat, but I have the feeling that Tomcat is ahead of Jetty. The startup time in development mode is not really important for me, considering that there are not that many cases where the server needs to be restarted. We don't use any specific feature to a particular server, so Comet or continuations are not in the balance. A few weeks ago I deployed successfully a GWT app on Tomcat on a Windows server in about 30 mins. It still took me about 1 day to do the same on Ubuntu, not because of GWT, but because of the way Tomcat is configured by default on Ubuntu. Since it was the same server from beginning to end, I had less to investigate. If it was another server engine, I would have doubts on many more configuration issues.
I am looking at the Widgets and the incubator and I wish a lot more work was done there. Lots of customers and developers have "ext" on their lips, I'd like to see more development in that area. The ScrollTable is hardly usable at the moment. And some comments have been there with no response http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/ScrollTable ========================================= Comment by di.zhao <http://code.google.com/u/di.zhao/>, Oct 01, 2008 Hi, this is pretty nice widget. For those who is puzzled by the demo not working in Firefox. I would suggest you to download the latest source code and run it locally. The ScrollTable<http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/ScrollTable>works nicely in both Firefox/Chrome & IE. One question though, will column drag and drop be supported in the future? Comment by [EMAIL PROTECTED]<http://code.google.com/u/@VRFTQFdRDxdFWAJ1/>, Oct 07 (6 days ago) Please can someone update the docs and example. This is a brilliant widget but in this state its almost unusable :( ========================================== The more I use GWT and the more I love it, I think it's a brilliant idea and implementation (I still have to find a bug in it!), but my priorities are not in the server startup time. In summary the current use of Tomcat is pretty good, why change and spend time and $$$ instead of spending time on other nice features? "If it ain't broken, why fix it?" But if you are already all decided then... Fred On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 14:53, Jason Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I personally use Tomcat a lot more, mainly because it started as the > reference > implementation (though I know it no longer technically holds that > position). The > few times I've wanted to use Jetty I've had to switch back to Tomcat due to > lack > of system admin knowledge (ie: the various admins I was working with didn't > know > it). > > That all said, I almost never use Hosted Mode, and system admins don't have > to > deal with a development time engine. Tomcat does have much better IDE > support > than Jetty, but since Hosted Mode is in charge of that, again it makes no > real > difference. When I do run Hosted Mode it's with the -noserver option. > > So my end opinion: I think the change is a good idea, since the additional > speed > and lower memory load will encourage people trying out GWT for the first > time. > > Tim wrote: > > jetty is awesome. > > > > In their latest drop (6.1.12.rc2 and rc3) there is a new feature in > > maven-jetty-plugin to reload jetty on keyboard events in console > > rather than automatically - it's indispensable when java GWT code > > lives in the same source tree as the server side java code (just in > > different package). And generally, maven jetty plugin is way better > > than Cargo stuff that's used for Tomcat. > > > > Also, Jetty Continuations are just some much easier to work with than > > Tomcat's Comet. No wonder they are including it into Servlet spec 3.0. > > > > Nothing particularly wrong with Tomcat but I think it's just lagging > > in terms of developer productivity features behind Jetty. > > > > > > On Oct 13, 9:42 pm, "Michael Vogt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi Bruce. > >> > >>> As part of this effort, we've all but decided to switch the hosted mode > >>> embedded HTTP server from Tomcat to Jetty. Would this break you? (And > if so, > >>> how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We figure most people who > really > >>> care about the web.xml and so on are already using "-noserver" to have > full > >>> control over their server config. > >> I personally would welcome Jetty. I'm using it as part of Grails right > >> now. It's fast and easy going. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Michael > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to Google-Web-Toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
