Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
Well, I didn't say that it promises to increase unit test speeds :P, I was asking if it would. It does make sense that it would since unit tests require for hosted mode and tomcat to be launched. -- Arthur Kalmenson On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Alex Epshteyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been mulling this over the past couple of weeks, and now I want to retract my initial objection about Jetty :) Mainly because, as Arthur and others pointed out, it's expected to speed up unit tests (which would be a huge win). And you don't need -noserver for most of the unit tests you might want to run - the default settings should be sufficient. Therefore this is one area where even the -noserver crowd can benefit from a faster embedded server. On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:51 PM, AB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am using -noserver so it doesnt matter and even if I wasnt, i could live with either. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
Yay Jetty. On Dec 5, 2:50 pm, Arthur Kalmenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I didn't say that it promises to increase unit test speeds :P, I was asking if it would. It does make sense that it would since unit tests require for hosted mode and tomcat to be launched. -- Arthur Kalmenson On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Alex Epshteyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been mulling this over the past couple of weeks, and now I want to retract my initial objection about Jetty :) Mainly because, as Arthur and others pointed out, it's expected to speed up unit tests (which would be a huge win). And you don't need -noserver for most of the unit tests you might want to run - the default settings should be sufficient. Therefore this is one area where even the -noserver crowd can benefit from a faster embedded server. On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:51 PM, AB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am using -noserver so it doesnt matter and even if I wasnt, i could live with either. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
Switching to Jetty won't break me. Actually, if you were switching to Jetty... 7 (that is to say with support Servlet 3.0 spec, especially support for continuations), I would be really glad !!! On 3 déc, 01:44, Reinier Zwitserloot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not Ken Shabby: Imagine here your -exact- reply, except swap 'tomcat' (note: it's not an acronym, you don't need to capitalize it.Jettyisn't either) with 'jetty' and vice versa. In other words, your argument is only relevant for you. It makes for an excellent reason to switch for those running the end result onjetty. On Nov 26, 3:55 am, Not Ken Shabby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will be using TOMCAT as the target server for the foreseeable future. My concern with switching toJETTYwithin the development environment is that bugs / issues with the interaction of GWT and TOMCAT may not be seen / address as quickly as they might otherwise be. There may also be some psychological / political effect --- oh, GWT is something that works withJetty, it used to work with Tomcat but they changed it On Oct 20, 10:46 am, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manuel Carrasco wrote:The most annoying issue with GWT is performance in development mode. I mean, compiling, startng hosted mode and running GWT Unit tests. So any action that improves these is welcome. So my vote if forjetty +1 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
I've been mulling this over the past couple of weeks, and now I want to retract my initial objection about Jetty :) Mainly because, as Arthur and others pointed out, it's expected to speed up unit tests (which would be a huge win). And you don't need -noserver for most of the unit tests you might want to run - the default settings should be sufficient. Therefore this is one area where even the -noserver crowd can benefit from a faster embedded server. On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:51 PM, AB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am using -noserver so it doesnt matter and even if I wasnt, i could live with either. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
Not Ken Shabby: Imagine here your -exact- reply, except swap 'tomcat' (note: it's not an acronym, you don't need to capitalize it. Jetty isn't either) with 'jetty' and vice versa. In other words, your argument is only relevant for you. It makes for an excellent reason to switch for those running the end result on jetty. On Nov 26, 3:55 am, Not Ken Shabby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will be using TOMCAT as the target server for the foreseeable future. My concern with switching to JETTY within the development environment is that bugs / issues with the interaction of GWT and TOMCAT may not be seen / address as quickly as they might otherwise be. There may also be some psychological / political effect --- oh, GWT is something that works with Jetty, it used to work with Tomcat but they changed it On Oct 20, 10:46 am, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manuel Carrasco wrote:The most annoying issue with GWT is performance in development mode. I mean, compiling, startng hosted mode and running GWT Unit tests. So any action that improves these is welcome. So my vote if for jetty +1 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
I know I am late to this thread, but Jetty would break a ton of stuff for me (I maintain the GWT-Maven plugin, which tweaks the embedded Tomcat) - even so, I would say it's a good idea (a lot of advantages), and I can adapt. One thing in this thread that concerns me though is the general everyone uses noserver beyond the basics sentiment, I don't think that's accurate - regardless of what the embedded server is (Tomcat or Jetty or whatever). About using a customized Tomcat to avoid -noserver hosted mode - I'm not entirely sure I understand why you would want to hack a custom version of the embedded Tomcat server rather than use your own customizable Tomcat server with the -noserver option. I customize the *embedded* Tomcat because without it I *can't run GWTTestCase based tests* - and thats HUGE in my book. (The JUnitShell doesn't support -noserver as far as I know? If I am incorrect on that front please advise - how do others work with tests if they are using noserver?) I don't use GWTTestCase tests for my UI either (I don't think that's helpful at all), rather I use them for my client side model and controller, and RPC calls and such, those tests (integration if you will). Also, having to debug separate processes when using noserver is more of a pain than simply NOT having to if you are tweaking the embedded server. I think the entire development cycle is just faster if I don't have to re-up server side resources in a separate process, etc. I can basically accomplish just about any complicated JEE setup with Tomcat, and therefore with the embedded Tomcat too. I use the Maven plugin to handle the details, but it can be done, and I think often is done, whether or not you are using Maven. (Because I am using the plugin, I don't have to hand tweak it, but I have a *source* web.xml that gets applied, and the classpath from my maven project is used, and so on from there.) Here is what we do to the embedded Tomcat from the plugin, for the record: http://gwt-maven.googlecode.com/svn/docs/maven-googlewebtoolkit2-plugin/tomcatlite.html. And I apologize in advance if this sounds like I am trying to pimp the plugin, I don't mean to, just trying to answer the why you would want to tweak the embedded Tomcat question, which applies no matter how you accomplish it. On Nov 24, 5:13 pm, Alex Epshteyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Sumit, Could you give more details about how you're using the customized embedded Tomcat and why it wouldn't be possible and even better to use your own Tomcat with -noserver? I'm not using -noserver because I figured it would be easier to run/stop just one process during development than 2. Bottom line: I think that it's faster to develop without the -noserver option. IDEs don't have perfect support for Tomcat and using GWT's embedded server just seems easier. I just have two tweaks in GWT's tomcat directory - one to ROOT.xml, to provide what my production WAR has in it's context.xml (namely, cookies=false) and the other to the ROOT/web.xml - to provide my own servlet/filter definitions. There's a good chance I will be able to adapt Jetty this way as well, so I don't want to spoil the party if everyone thinks Jetty is the way to go :) Finally, about the new WAR directory structure. I agree with your intentions here. You're right, the need to build a WAR after GWT compile seems like an unnecessary step right now, and is certainly a pain point for beginners. (I was fortunate to find a really good sample build.xml file on the web when I was just starting out with GWT two years ago). If you're going to modify the compiler to produce a WAR, I hope you will consider making this process pluggable so that one could add their own build logic to it (for example, my build.xml creates a gzipped copy of all the .cache.* files to go into the WAR). Either way, I completely support having this step be optional based on flags. I can't say as much about the Java line from JavaScript exception feature, but it sounds like it would be a great feature to have (and a great candidate as a Request For Enhancement on the Issue Tracker). It's already on the books (I should have included the link in my original post): http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=2702 This is a really important feature for me. In the interim, I was thinking of using Soot to instrument my Java code to manually keep track of the call stack. This will probably make the resulting JS really slow and bloated, but might be an interesting experiment. Glad to hear you guys are still working on the Declarative UI concept and OOPHM! Thanks, Alex On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Sumit Chandel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Alex, I'm interested to learn more about your use case, as it is possible that there are things we haven't considered the next move from 1.5 to 1.6. Specifically, the move to Jetty seems like it's a net win because of
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
I was going to ask if the embedded Tomcat has to be used in GWTTestCases. It seemed like that to me, and if switching to Jetty will speed up launching GWTTestCases (or GWTTestSuites), that's going to be very nice for our builds. -- Arthur Kalmenson On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Charlie Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know I am late to this thread, but Jetty would break a ton of stuff for me (I maintain the GWT-Maven plugin, which tweaks the embedded Tomcat) - even so, I would say it's a good idea (a lot of advantages), and I can adapt. One thing in this thread that concerns me though is the general everyone uses noserver beyond the basics sentiment, I don't think that's accurate - regardless of what the embedded server is (Tomcat or Jetty or whatever). About using a customized Tomcat to avoid -noserver hosted mode - I'm not entirely sure I understand why you would want to hack a custom version of the embedded Tomcat server rather than use your own customizable Tomcat server with the -noserver option. I customize the *embedded* Tomcat because without it I *can't run GWTTestCase based tests* - and thats HUGE in my book. (The JUnitShell doesn't support -noserver as far as I know? If I am incorrect on that front please advise - how do others work with tests if they are using noserver?) I don't use GWTTestCase tests for my UI either (I don't think that's helpful at all), rather I use them for my client side model and controller, and RPC calls and such, those tests (integration if you will). Also, having to debug separate processes when using noserver is more of a pain than simply NOT having to if you are tweaking the embedded server. I think the entire development cycle is just faster if I don't have to re-up server side resources in a separate process, etc. I can basically accomplish just about any complicated JEE setup with Tomcat, and therefore with the embedded Tomcat too. I use the Maven plugin to handle the details, but it can be done, and I think often is done, whether or not you are using Maven. (Because I am using the plugin, I don't have to hand tweak it, but I have a *source* web.xml that gets applied, and the classpath from my maven project is used, and so on from there.) Here is what we do to the embedded Tomcat from the plugin, for the record: http://gwt-maven.googlecode.com/svn/docs/maven-googlewebtoolkit2-plugin/tomcatlite.html. And I apologize in advance if this sounds like I am trying to pimp the plugin, I don't mean to, just trying to answer the why you would want to tweak the embedded Tomcat question, which applies no matter how you accomplish it. On Nov 24, 5:13 pm, Alex Epshteyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Sumit, Could you give more details about how you're using the customized embedded Tomcat and why it wouldn't be possible and even better to use your own Tomcat with -noserver? I'm not using -noserver because I figured it would be easier to run/stop just one process during development than 2. Bottom line: I think that it's faster to develop without the -noserver option. IDEs don't have perfect support for Tomcat and using GWT's embedded server just seems easier. I just have two tweaks in GWT's tomcat directory - one to ROOT.xml, to provide what my production WAR has in it's context.xml (namely, cookies=false) and the other to the ROOT/web.xml - to provide my own servlet/filter definitions. There's a good chance I will be able to adapt Jetty this way as well, so I don't want to spoil the party if everyone thinks Jetty is the way to go :) Finally, about the new WAR directory structure. I agree with your intentions here. You're right, the need to build a WAR after GWT compile seems like an unnecessary step right now, and is certainly a pain point for beginners. (I was fortunate to find a really good sample build.xml file on the web when I was just starting out with GWT two years ago). If you're going to modify the compiler to produce a WAR, I hope you will consider making this process pluggable so that one could add their own build logic to it (for example, my build.xml creates a gzipped copy of all the .cache.* files to go into the WAR). Either way, I completely support having this step be optional based on flags. I can't say as much about the Java line from JavaScript exception feature, but it sounds like it would be a great feature to have (and a great candidate as a Request For Enhancement on the Issue Tracker). It's already on the books (I should have included the link in my original post): http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=2702 This is a really important feature for me. In the interim, I was thinking of using Soot to instrument my Java code to manually keep track of the call stack. This will probably make the resulting JS really slow and bloated, but might be an interesting experiment. Glad to hear you guys are still
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
I will be using TOMCAT as the target server for the foreseeable future. My concern with switching to JETTY within the development environment is that bugs / issues with the interaction of GWT and TOMCAT may not be seen / address as quickly as they might otherwise be. There may also be some psychological / political effect --- oh, GWT is something that works with Jetty, it used to work with Tomcat but they changed it On Oct 20, 10:46 am, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manuel Carrasco wrote:The most annoying issue with GWT is performance in development mode. I mean, compiling, startng hosted mode and running GWT Unit tests. So any action that improves these is welcome. So my vote if for jetty +1 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
I am using -noserver so it doesnt matter and even if I wasnt, i could live with either. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
Hi Alex, I'm interested to learn more about your use case, as it is possible that there are things we haven't considered the next move from 1.5 to 1.6. Specifically, the move to Jetty seems like it's a net win because of the start up time improvements. Making hosted mode faster will require a combination of tweaks across the board, from which embedded server it's using to the way it refreshes and picks up code changes. Every second counts, and it seems to me like shaving off a good four seconds is well worth it if all that's required is a switch of the embedded server. I agree that developers who are using -noserver will not see any benefit by making the switch, but developers who are still depending on hosted mode's embedded server or those who are just starting out will get better startup performance as a result. About using a customized Tomcat to avoid -noserver hosted mode - I'm not entirely sure I understand why you would want to hack a custom version of the embedded Tomcat server rather than use your own customizable Tomcat server with the -noserver option. The embedded server wasn't really purposed to be a hackable component and was instead meant to serve as a quick way to get your application setup for early stage hosted mode debugging. Could you give more details about how you're using the customized embedded Tomcat and why it wouldn't be possible and even better to use your own Tomcat with -noserver? Finally, about the new WAR directory structure, I agree with you that it would suck if it forced developers to re-tweak their build scripts if they've already been written in a way that depends on the current output directory structure. What I feel would be necessary here would be to pass in flags that could determine the directory structure style. I believe the upcoming support for the WAR directory structure itself would be really useful to developers as they would be able to directly deploy their application from the generated files and directories directly. What's more, it could simplify some build scripts that have been tweaking the current output directory structure to better match the WAR convention. The best place to continue this discussion would be at the GWT Contributors thread linked below: GWT-Contributors: http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors/browse_thread/thread/130d3f120ee8671a The features you mentioned in your final thoughts are all things the team has thought about, and that some have actively been working on. OOPHM is still in active development as is the Declarative UI framework, as Reinier mentioned. There's also been some research into making the compiler faster. I can't say as much about the Java line from JavaScript exception feature, but it sounds like it would be a great feature to have (and a great candidate as a Request For Enhancement on the Issue Tracker). Issue Tracker: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/list Cheers, -Sumit Chandel On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Alex Epshteyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce, I might be too late in replying to this thread, but I want to phrase my objections to what you've proposed. A. Regarding Jetty: I think this will be a waste of time for everyone. Switching underlying servers is a no value added task (using Six Sigma vocabulary). 1). Many developers are using -noserver so for them this will make no difference. 2). Many other developers have customized the embedded Tomcat to suit our needs (I spent hours customizing it so that I don't have to run with -noserver). It will take hours to re-adjust again if you switch underlying servers. 3). Why? What's the benefit of switching to Jetty? Tomcat startup is like 5 seconds tops, which accounts for maybe 10% of the hosted mode startup time. You should speed up the compiler if you want to speed up hosted mode. I don't understand what Jetty has to offer here. I'd be happy if you proved me wrong here, though. B. Regarding the output directory structure: I feel the same way about this as I do about Jetty. I think this is a waste of time - no real value added to GWT. Most of us will have to re-tweak our ant build configs which is always a waste of time. C. Final thoughts I'm really looking forward to seeing something of substance in the roadmap for 1.6, because between what you've written here and what's marked with 1_6_RC on the issue tracker, I see nothing of any value except minor bug fixes. Here are the top 3 features that I think would add real value to GWT: 1). A way to get meaningful Java line number from Javascript exceptions thrown in a deployed production app (compiled with -style OBF) 2). Out-of-process hosted mode (to enable using different browsers in hosted mode). 3). A Declarative UI framework (one was started by Joel W. but seems to have been abandoned). 4). Speed up compilation Java 5 support would have been #1 on this list a year ago. You guys did a great
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
Hi Sumit, Could you give more details about how you're using the customized embedded Tomcat and why it wouldn't be possible and even better to use your own Tomcat with -noserver? I'm not using -noserver because I figured it would be easier to run/stop just one process during development than 2. Bottom line: I think that it's faster to develop without the -noserver option. IDEs don't have perfect support for Tomcat and using GWT's embedded server just seems easier. I just have two tweaks in GWT's tomcat directory - one to ROOT.xml, to provide what my production WAR has in it's context.xml (namely, cookies=false) and the other to the ROOT/web.xml - to provide my own servlet/filter definitions. There's a good chance I will be able to adapt Jetty this way as well, so I don't want to spoil the party if everyone thinks Jetty is the way to go :) Finally, about the new WAR directory structure. I agree with your intentions here. You're right, the need to build a WAR after GWT compile seems like an unnecessary step right now, and is certainly a pain point for beginners. (I was fortunate to find a really good sample build.xml file on the web when I was just starting out with GWT two years ago). If you're going to modify the compiler to produce a WAR, I hope you will consider making this process pluggable so that one could add their own build logic to it (for example, my build.xml creates a gzipped copy of all the .cache.* files to go into the WAR). Either way, I completely support having this step be optional based on flags. I can't say as much about the Java line from JavaScript exception feature, but it sounds like it would be a great feature to have (and a great candidate as a Request For Enhancement on the Issue Tracker). It's already on the books (I should have included the link in my original post): http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=2702 This is a really important feature for me. In the interim, I was thinking of using Soot to instrument my Java code to manually keep track of the call stack. This will probably make the resulting JS really slow and bloated, but might be an interesting experiment. Glad to hear you guys are still working on the Declarative UI concept and OOPHM! Thanks, Alex On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Sumit Chandel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Alex, I'm interested to learn more about your use case, as it is possible that there are things we haven't considered the next move from 1.5 to 1.6. Specifically, the move to Jetty seems like it's a net win because of the start up time improvements. Making hosted mode faster will require a combination of tweaks across the board, from which embedded server it's using to the way it refreshes and picks up code changes. Every second counts, and it seems to me like shaving off a good four seconds is well worth it if all that's required is a switch of the embedded server. I agree that developers who are using -noserver will not see any benefit by making the switch, but developers who are still depending on hosted mode's embedded server or those who are just starting out will get better startup performance as a result. About using a customized Tomcat to avoid -noserver hosted mode - I'm not entirely sure I understand why you would want to hack a custom version of the embedded Tomcat server rather than use your own customizable Tomcat server with the -noserver option. The embedded server wasn't really purposed to be a hackable component and was instead meant to serve as a quick way to get your application setup for early stage hosted mode debugging. Could you give more details about how you're using the customized embedded Tomcat and why it wouldn't be possible and even better to use your own Tomcat with -noserver? Finally, about the new WAR directory structure, I agree with you that it would suck if it forced developers to re-tweak their build scripts if they've already been written in a way that depends on the current output directory structure. What I feel would be necessary here would be to pass in flags that could determine the directory structure style. I believe the upcoming support for the WAR directory structure itself would be really useful to developers as they would be able to directly deploy their application from the generated files and directories directly. What's more, it could simplify some build scripts that have been tweaking the current output directory structure to better match the WAR convention. The best place to continue this discussion would be at the GWT Contributors thread linked below: GWT-Contributors: http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors/browse_thread/thread/130d3f120ee8671a The features you mentioned in your final thoughts are all things the team has thought about, and that some have actively been working on. OOPHM is still in active development as is the Declarative UI framework, as Reinier
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
To summarize Alex' complaint: Your plans will add hardship to my work. Please don't do that. That's a fair point, but I believe this point was understand from the start. What size app do you have, if the 4 second bootup time for tomcat doesn't bother you? It must be enormous. Hosted mode doesn't compile anything, it interprets, that's why it starts up so much faster than actually compiling it. OOPHM is still being worked on actively by the core GWT team, if the chatter in gwt-contributors is any indicator. It hasn't been abandoned. On Nov 22, 12:54 am, Alex Epshteyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce, I might be too late in replying to this thread, but I want to phrase my objections to what you've proposed. A. Regarding Jetty: I think this will be a waste of time for everyone. Switching underlying servers is a no value added task (using Six Sigma vocabulary). 1). Many developers are using -noserver so for them this will make no difference. 2). Many other developers have customized the embedded Tomcat to suit our needs (I spent hours customizing it so that I don't have to run with -noserver). It will take hours to re-adjust again if you switch underlying servers. 3). Why? What's the benefit of switching to Jetty? Tomcat startup is like 5 seconds tops, which accounts for maybe 10% of the hosted mode startup time. You should speed up the compiler if you want to speed up hosted mode. I don't understand what Jetty has to offer here. I'd be happy if you proved me wrong here, though. B. Regarding the output directory structure: I feel the same way about this as I do about Jetty. I think this is a waste of time - no real value added to GWT. Most of us will have to re-tweak our ant build configs which is always a waste of time. C. Final thoughts I'm really looking forward to seeing something of substance in the roadmap for 1.6, because between what you've written here and what's marked with 1_6_RC on the issue tracker, I see nothing of any value except minor bug fixes. Here are the top 3 features that I think would add real value to GWT: 1). A way to get meaningful Java line number from Javascript exceptions thrown in a deployed production app (compiled with -style OBF) 2). Out-of-process hosted mode (to enable using different browsers in hosted mode). 3). A Declarative UI framework (one was started by Joel W. but seems to have been abandoned). 4). Speed up compilation Java 5 support would have been #1 on this list a year ago. You guys did a great job with GWT 1.5 - it included at least 2 giant leaps (Java 5 and the JSO/DOM framework), and I hope to see another big leap like that on the roadmap instead of features that add little value to GWT, like Tomcat vs. Jetty. In the end, if you decide to go forward with Jetty, I can come to terms with that, but I will need a good reason to upgrade to 1.6, like one of the 4 items on my list. Thanks for your time, Alex On Oct 13, 4:48 pm, Bruce Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone, Hope you're enjoying 1.5. The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll publish as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work on for 1.6 are some improvements tohostedmodestartup time and a friendlier output directory structure (something that looks more .war-like). As part of this effort, we've all but decided toswitchthehostedmode embeddedHTTPserverfromTomcattoJetty. 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 theirserverconfig. Thanks, Bruce --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
jetty or tomcat, no problem for us. But startup speed certainly is! we use -noserver with jboss/oc4j and weblogic. Few thing I would like to propose/request in upcoming release: #1. Seamless hot deployment for any source code change(class signature as well as stmt changes). So when the user refreshes the browser, js compilation does not take place. it will just load whatever exists. Hot deployment will make sure that whatever exists is always current. I know this is difficult to achieve but if it is implemented, the development time will be super super fast. We will basically have to run the app in hosted mode browser only once. And all subsequent changes will be auto deployed(synched) with the hosted mode. In big applications like ours, almost every code change requires hosted mode refresh. And in most cases it takes any where between 50 to 200 secs. #2. If #1 is not possible: gwt should atleast detect the files that were changed since app was last refreshed and attempt to compile load only those changes. Some how the compiler/loader/linker should be smart enough to the level where hosted mode refresh is reduced to less than 7 seconds. Really looking forward towards a super fast hosted mode. Thanks, Rakesh Wagh On Oct 20, 9:46 am, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manuel Carrasco wrote:The most annoying issue with GWT is performance in development mode. I mean, compiling, startng hosted mode and running GWT Unit tests. So any action that improves these is welcome. So my vote if for jetty +1 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
Bruce, I might be too late in replying to this thread, but I want to phrase my objections to what you've proposed. A. Regarding Jetty: I think this will be a waste of time for everyone. Switching underlying servers is a no value added task (using Six Sigma vocabulary). 1). Many developers are using -noserver so for them this will make no difference. 2). Many other developers have customized the embedded Tomcat to suit our needs (I spent hours customizing it so that I don't have to run with -noserver). It will take hours to re-adjust again if you switch underlying servers. 3). Why? What's the benefit of switching to Jetty? Tomcat startup is like 5 seconds tops, which accounts for maybe 10% of the hosted mode startup time. You should speed up the compiler if you want to speed up hosted mode. I don't understand what Jetty has to offer here. I'd be happy if you proved me wrong here, though. B. Regarding the output directory structure: I feel the same way about this as I do about Jetty. I think this is a waste of time - no real value added to GWT. Most of us will have to re-tweak our ant build configs which is always a waste of time. C. Final thoughts I'm really looking forward to seeing something of substance in the roadmap for 1.6, because between what you've written here and what's marked with 1_6_RC on the issue tracker, I see nothing of any value except minor bug fixes. Here are the top 3 features that I think would add real value to GWT: 1). A way to get meaningful Java line number from Javascript exceptions thrown in a deployed production app (compiled with -style OBF) 2). Out-of-process hosted mode (to enable using different browsers in hosted mode). 3). A Declarative UI framework (one was started by Joel W. but seems to have been abandoned). 4). Speed up compilation Java 5 support would have been #1 on this list a year ago. You guys did a great job with GWT 1.5 - it included at least 2 giant leaps (Java 5 and the JSO/DOM framework), and I hope to see another big leap like that on the roadmap instead of features that add little value to GWT, like Tomcat vs. Jetty. In the end, if you decide to go forward with Jetty, I can come to terms with that, but I will need a good reason to upgrade to 1.6, like one of the 4 items on my list. Thanks for your time, Alex On Oct 13, 4:48 pm, Bruce Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone, Hope you're enjoying 1.5. The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll publish as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work on for 1.6 are some improvements tohostedmodestartup time and a friendlier output directory structure (something that looks more .war-like). As part of this effort, we've all but decided toswitchthehostedmode embeddedHTTPserverfromTomcattoJetty. 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 theirserverconfig. Thanks, Bruce --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
The most annoying issue with GWT is performance in development mode. I mean, compiling, startng hosted mode and running GWT Unit tests. So any action that improves these is welcome. So my vote if for jetty On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:44 AM, Arthur Kalmenson [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: If it makes hosted mode launch faster, go for it :) -- Arthur Kalmenson On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Bruce Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone, Hope you're enjoying 1.5. The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll publish as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work on for 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time and a friendlier output directory structure (something that looks more .war-like). 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. Thanks, Bruce --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
I've been using -noserver since GWT 1.3 On Oct 13, 7:48 pm, Bruce Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone, Hope you're enjoying 1.5. The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll publish as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work on for 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time and a friendlier output directory structure (something that looks more .war-like). 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. Thanks, Bruce --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
Switching to jetty would be fine we me and my colleagues as well. We use -noserver for hosted mode and unit testing (with some hackery). On Oct 13, 5:48 pm, Bruce Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone, Hope you're enjoying 1.5. The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll publish as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work on for 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time and a friendlier output directory structure (something that looks more .war-like). 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. Thanks, Bruce --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
Hi all, Opinion on this thread seems pretty much one way, but I currently know little of Jetty. 1) Can anyone give a brief summary of why Jetty is better than Tomcat? 2) Can I be reassured I won't run into unforeseen difficulties deploying to JBoss? regards gregor On Oct 20, 2:03 pm, Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Switching to jetty would be fine we me and my colleagues as well. We use -noserver for hosted mode and unit testing (with some hackery). On Oct 13, 5:48 pm, Bruce Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone, Hope you're enjoying 1.5. The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll publish as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work on for 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time and a friendlier output directory structure (something that looks more .war-like). 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. Thanks, Bruce --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
Bruce, If your objective is to embed it in GWT, then I would definitely recommend Jetty. Cheers On Oct 14, 9:48 am, Bruce Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone, Hope you're enjoying 1.5. The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll publish as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work on for 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time and a friendlier output directory structure (something that looks more .war-like). 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. Thanks, Bruce --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
Manuel Carrasco wrote: The most annoying issue with GWT is performance in development mode. I mean, compiling, startng hosted mode and running GWT Unit tests. So any action that improves these is welcome. So my vote if for jetty +1 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
Bruce et all, On behalf of the Jetty team, can I say that we're delighted to hear the GWT team is considering using Jetty for hosted mode. According to NetCraft statistics, Jetty has around 70-80% of the market share of Tomcat for *visible* deployed servers. Of course, as Jetty is embedded in numerous products, like Eclipse IDE and Grails, then actually the number of Jetty installations out there is muuch bigger :) And there are some very very large production sites that run under Jetty, but mostly these commercial sites obscure the server id. As you probably already know, Jetty has been a leader in the area of async. servlet processing (aka Continuations: http://docs.codehaus.org/display/JETTY/Continuations) and we've already integrated this capability into the GWT remoting framework (http://docs.codehaus.org/display/JETTY/GWT) - we'd love to work with the GWT team to make that integration even better. As far as Jetty/Tomcat differences go, since servlet spec 2.5 there is much less scope for spec ambiguities to cause different behaviour between the 2 servers, and generally speaking what runs on one will run on the other. We've hardly received any portability issues at all since spec 2.5. Of course, should a portability issue arise, we're more than happy to work with the GWT team to resolve it. best regards Jan On Oct 14, 9:48 am, Bruce Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone, Hope you're enjoying 1.5. The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll publish as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work on for 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time and a friendlier output directory structure (something that looks more .war-like). 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. Thanks, Bruce --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
I use both so wouldn't be an issue. I do prefer jetty as an embedded HTTP server. cheers /jima --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
I do extensive get development in Netbeans for GWT and very happy with the current setup minus increasing the maxmemory variable every time I restart Netbeans so I don't run out of memory when building the application. If I debug the project, I run in the GWT browser and can do incremental debug updates on code without restarting as long as method signatures don't change so I rarely have issues with startup time when debugging code. When I want to test in browser I simply run the project and it launches in my default browser fairly quickly. To do a clean build takes about 1 minute 20 seconds on a fairly fast box. Changing one file and selecting debug which will build and launch takes 1 minute 30 seconds where startup of gwt browser takes about 10 seconds. I would like to see faster incremental build times when changing only one file. I work around this by debugging/fixing bugs and doing incremental updates on the current debug session and test the new code. This way I don't repeat all the application steps to get to the same debug state to test the code changes. Netbeans does the update and recalls the method with the same values prior to the incremental update. The main point is I have a very productive and working environment where I have a war file automatically built by netbeans and couldn't think of any way to make it easier and I do nothing to mess with the xml for building and deploying. No problems with you making changes but hopefully it doesn't break what already works well in netbeans. It would be nice if incremental builds was faster. Thanks Scooter Willis On Oct 15, 7:49 am, walden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 well said. On Oct 14, 6:03 pm, Jason Essington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since creating a usable server side configuration in the embedded servlet container is all but impossible for anything but the simplest projects, I think that the choice of embedded server is a non-issue. Since complicated configurations aren't really something you want to address in the embedded server, my vote would be for the simplest, fastest implementation that supports the simple case uses. So, if Jetty starts faster and is lighter weight, then great, use it. -jason On Oct 13, 2008, at 4:48 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote: Hi everyone, Hope you're enjoying 1.5. The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll publish as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work on for 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time and a friendlier output directory structure (something that looks more .war-like). 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. Thanks, Bruce- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
If it's faster, go for it, don't see how it can break hosted mode. If a substantial amount of the hosted start-up time is actually the server, one alternative might be to have a built-in way to start up the server portion separately, and let it stay running while iterating client code. I find the server code to generally be more amenable to hot-swapping, while changes in client code often require a restart, so if it didn't have to restart the server each time that would be a big bonus. Of course I can currently set stuff up run the server separately on my own, but having the ability built-in seems more along the GWT philosophy of easy entry. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
+1 well said. On Oct 14, 6:03 pm, Jason Essington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since creating a usable server side configuration in the embedded servlet container is all but impossible for anything but the simplest projects, I think that the choice of embedded server is a non-issue. Since complicated configurations aren't really something you want to address in the embedded server, my vote would be for the simplest, fastest implementation that supports the simple case uses. So, if Jetty starts faster and is lighter weight, then great, use it. -jason On Oct 13, 2008, at 4:48 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote: Hi everyone, Hope you're enjoying 1.5. The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll publish as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work on for 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time and a friendlier output directory structure (something that looks more .war-like). 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. Thanks, Bruce- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
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 ScrollTablehttp://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/ScrollTableworks 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
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
I think it is broken in the sense that it does take a lot of time to get the app running when in development mode (and hosted mode), or at least more time that I would like it to. I would welcome Jetty if that improves the performance. I have nothing specific to tomcat so far, so nothing should be broken. I actually use Jetty to deploy and test the application quickly in web mode. On Oct 14, 3:44 am, Fred Janon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 responsehttp://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 ScrollTablehttp://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/ScrollTableworks 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
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
Whichever lets you release out-of-process hosted mode (OOPHM) sooner :) (I am using -noserver option anyway) Thanks, Yegor On Oct 13, 4:48 pm, Bruce Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone, Hope you're enjoying 1.5. The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll publish as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work on for 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time and a friendlier output directory structure (something that looks more .war-like). 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. Thanks, Bruce --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
Jetty +1 I am all for anything that speeds up hosted mode development. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
Since creating a usable server side configuration in the embedded servlet container is all but impossible for anything but the simplest projects, I think that the choice of embedded server is a non-issue. Since complicated configurations aren't really something you want to address in the embedded server, my vote would be for the simplest, fastest implementation that supports the simple case uses. So, if Jetty starts faster and is lighter weight, then great, use it. -jason On Oct 13, 2008, at 4:48 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote: Hi everyone, Hope you're enjoying 1.5. The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll publish as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work on for 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time and a friendlier output directory structure (something that looks more .war-like). 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. Thanks, Bruce --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
It already is! have a look at -noserver My project requires a full blown JEE container, not just a servlet engine, so neither tomcat nor jetty would be enough. I have been using -noserver since the beginning and it works great. If the embedded server doesn't fit your needs (no matter what that server ends up being) then it is no big deal to use whatever server does work for you. -jason On Oct 14, 2008, at 8:34 AM, jvanroekel wrote: We run Tomcat in production and on our desktops. I prefer to test with the same system. Having said that, I appreciate the value of Jetty. So, why can't we have both? Make it a config option. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
I use -noserver so, for me, effort spent on switching from Tomcat to Jetty is wasted, but I wouldn't begrudge the team for satisfying demand. Ian --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
Hi everyone, Hope you're enjoying 1.5. The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll publish as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work on for 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time and a friendlier output directory structure (something that looks more .war-like). 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. Thanks, Bruce --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Your opinion sought: Jetty or Tomcat?
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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
