Re: Wicket Article on DevX
Nope, and you can also debug that one, you just need to pass the releveant parameters to the jvm. Martijn Dashorst wrote: The embedded tomcat was not that hard to install, not harder than creating a jetty quickstart. Martijn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Article on DevX
*2 igor.vaynberg wrote: > > +1 > > -igor > > > On 10/14/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hey Daniel, great stuff! Thanks! >> >> Eelco >> >> On 10/14/07, Daniel Carleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Hello Wicket, >> > >> > I wrote an introductory article on Wicket for DevX, which they >> > published a few days back (will go front page after a few typos are >> > fixed). I tried to include lots of practical information on the >> > framework's design and usage. I hope it helps to turn more people on >> > to Wicket! >> > >> > http://www.devx.com/Java/Article/35620 >> > >> > Congratulations on the upcoming 1.3 release, and thanks to everyone >> > on IRC (esp. chillenious, matej, and ivaynberg) who fielded my Wicket >> > questions all summer. >> > >> > - Daniel (dacc) >> > >> > >> > - >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-Article-on-DevX-tf4623720.html#a13222153 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Article on DevX
On 10/15/07, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One thing I like about Jetty is that it's normally clear to see what's > mounted where, as the default '/' servlet will list them when running > 'mvn jetty:run' (although that's not in our Start.java). > we don't need that in Start.java, because Al changed it, so that the quickstart app is mounted at '/', which makes perfectly sense for the quickstart. gerolf
Re: Wicket Article on DevX
Yes, you're right, I didn't read it again. But it also got me to switch to jetty because IIRC the the memory overhead for using tomcat 5 (I heard tomcat 6 is different there) when just starting up my tiny apps was significantly higher - although it might be less dramatic than I have in memory ;-) Regards, Roland On 10/15/07, Sam Hough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The article seems to be more advocating running multiple JVMs if you are > prepared to run a front end proxy to put everything back under the same > ip/port? Presumably you could do the same with Tomcat etc..? > > The runtime usage of Jetty vs Tomcat would be interesting but as always > turns out it is very application specific and 9 times out of 10 the > application(s) you are running will consume more memory/CPU than the > container... Sure we've all seen the apps that are doing something > complicated to the database for every request... > > > Roland Kaercher wrote: > > > > Nathan has written a nice article on jetty which made me to switch to > > jetty for deployment too: > > http://technically.us/code/x/to-jettison-geronimo/ > > > > (and no, I did not regret it) > > > > regards, > > Roland > > > > On 10/15/07, Sam Hough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Congratulaions on the article. > >> > >> I was interested by the "encourages the use of the Jetty container" bit. > >> Is > >> that more that the core Wicket developers prefer Jetty or is there a > >> killer > >> advantage over the more common Tomcat? > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> Sam > >> -- > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-Article-on-DevX-tf4623720.html#a13213821 > Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Article on DevX
Daniel, Sorry for starting an emacs vs vi debate. Really is a nice article. Anything to drag people out of the struts dark ages! Cheers Sam -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-Article-on-DevX-tf4623720.html#a13214216 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Article on DevX
The article seems to be more advocating running multiple JVMs if you are prepared to run a front end proxy to put everything back under the same ip/port? Presumably you could do the same with Tomcat etc..? The runtime usage of Jetty vs Tomcat would be interesting but as always turns out it is very application specific and 9 times out of 10 the application(s) you are running will consume more memory/CPU than the container... Sure we've all seen the apps that are doing something complicated to the database for every request... Roland Kaercher wrote: > > Nathan has written a nice article on jetty which made me to switch to > jetty for deployment too: > http://technically.us/code/x/to-jettison-geronimo/ > > (and no, I did not regret it) > > regards, > Roland > > On 10/15/07, Sam Hough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Congratulaions on the article. >> >> I was interested by the "encourages the use of the Jetty container" bit. >> Is >> that more that the core Wicket developers prefer Jetty or is there a >> killer >> advantage over the more common Tomcat? >> >> Cheers >> >> Sam >> -- > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-Article-on-DevX-tf4623720.html#a13213821 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Article on DevX
Tomcat doesn't requires you to deploy with a war file. Check out setting the context in conf/server.xml james yong Gwyn wrote: > > > Even better, when developing you dont > need to package your app into a war and deploy it - which are big time > wasting steps when you have to do them every ten minutes - instead > simply launch the included Start.java and your app is up and running > in seconds and includes hotswap. > > /Gwyn > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-Article-on-DevX-tf4623720.html#a13213711 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Article on DevX
Nathan has written a nice article on jetty which made me to switch to jetty for deployment too: http://technically.us/code/x/to-jettison-geronimo/ (and no, I did not regret it) regards, Roland On 10/15/07, Sam Hough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Congratulaions on the article. > > I was interested by the "encourages the use of the Jetty container" bit. Is > that more that the core Wicket developers prefer Jetty or is there a killer > advantage over the more common Tomcat? > > Cheers > > Sam > -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Article on DevX
On Monday, October 15, 2007, 1:35:25 PM, Erik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course you can startup Tomcat from Eclipse just as well >> I seem to remember that Jetty is vastly easier to configure from Java >> source. > I tried this with Jetty 6. Hardly any documentation or complete examples > to be found. So I switched back to Jetty 4 for which I had an example > from an old wicket-quickstart. Just for info, the 'new' wicket-quickstart, generated by the archetype includes the Jetty 6 Start.java, although personally, I use the Winstone IDEA plugin. /Gwyn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Article on DevX
I'm fun of Winstone, too. Before switching to wicket I used to use it for struts based applications. The only small "fix" I did into Winstone is that I've added clientAuth flag, so I can use command line to tell Winstone use client authentication or not use. Gwyn wrote: > > Of course, having said that, I need to say that I'm having good > results with Winstone, where Jetty was having issues (with the > non-Wicket connected part of a legacy web-app) - see > http://www.nabble.com/Wicket%2C-IDEA-and-Winstone...-p12919201.html > > /Gwyn > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-Article-on-DevX-tf4623720.html#a13212322 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Article on DevX
The embedded tomcat was not that hard to install, not harder than creating a jetty quickstart. Martijn -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Article on DevX
I hacked tomcat down and it is still 3.3M! As you say also need to fiddle with server.xml etc... I've not used the juli based logging version but in the past logging has been a real pain. Sooo frustrating to want to test something interesting only to be held up by (&*(*& logging. Why am I using Tomcat again? ;) Matej Knopp-2 wrote: > > Well, I guess you can. Still you need to have tomcat installed, > whereas with jetty you only need a 300kb jar in project. Also as > stated above, you don't need JSP support (compiler, etc) so the > footprint is really small. > > -Matej > > On 10/15/07, Sam Hough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Still can't see why you can't do "local" debugging with Tomcat. From >> eclipse >> you just start it as an application with main class >> "org.apache.catalina.startup.Bootstrap"... I also run Tomcat in >> OptimizeIt >> without any remoting... >> >> I've no agenda about Tomcat. Was just curious about the preference. I >> seem >> to remember that Jetty is vastly easier to configure from Java source. >> Presumably it is also still much smaller. >> >> Cheers >> >> Sam >> >> >> >> Nino.Martinez wrote: >> > >> > theres a equallent to mvn jetty:run called mvn tomcat:run... >> > >> > If devs decided to give up mvn jetty:run then we would loose support >> for >> > debuging with start.java ... As Matej mentions.. >> > >> > regards Nino >> > >> > Gwyn Evans wrote: >> >> On Monday, October 15, 2007, 11:56:55 AM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> I was interested by the "encourages the use of the Jetty container" >> bit. >> >>> Is >> >>> that more that the core Wicket developers prefer Jetty or is there a >> >>> killer >> >>> advantage over the more common Tomcat? >> >>> >> >> >> >> [Reposting a paragraph of Igor's to start, in case it looks familiar!] >> >> >> >> The advantages are that you can quickly get your app running using mvn >> >> jetty:jetty command if you want. Even better, when developing you dont >> >> need to package your app into a war and deploy it - which are big time >> >> wasting steps when you have to do them every ten minutes - instead >> >> simply launch the included Start.java and your app is up and running >> >> in seconds and includes hotswap. >> >> >> >> One thing I like about Jetty is that it's normally clear to see what's >> >> mounted where, as the default '/' servlet will list them when running >> >> 'mvn jetty:run' (although that's not in our Start.java). >> >> >> >> Of course, having said that, I need to say that I'm having good >> >> results with Winstone, where Jetty was having issues (with the >> >> non-Wicket connected part of a legacy web-app) - see >> >> http://www.nabble.com/Wicket%2C-IDEA-and-Winstone...-p12919201.html >> >> >> >> /Gwyn >> >> >> >> >> >> - >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > - >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-Article-on-DevX-tf4623720.html#a13211292 >> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-Article-on-DevX-tf4623720.html#a13212117 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Article on DevX
Of course you can startup Tomcat from Eclipse just as well :) I seem to remember that Jetty is vastly easier to configure from Java source. I tried this with Jetty 6. Hardly any documentation or complete examples to be found. So I switched back to Jetty 4 for which I had an example from an old wicket-quickstart. Tomcat at least has a very decent and understandable embedded java interface. Regards, Erik. Sam Hough wrote: Still can't see why you can't do "local" debugging with Tomcat. From eclipse you just start it as an application with main class "org.apache.catalina.startup.Bootstrap"... I also run Tomcat in OptimizeIt without any remoting... I've no agenda about Tomcat. Was just curious about the preference. I seem to remember that Jetty is vastly easier to configure from Java source. Presumably it is also still much smaller. Cheers Sam Nino.Martinez wrote: theres a equallent to mvn jetty:run called mvn tomcat:run... If devs decided to give up mvn jetty:run then we would loose support for debuging with start.java ... As Matej mentions.. regards Nino Gwyn Evans wrote: On Monday, October 15, 2007, 11:56:55 AM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I was interested by the "encourages the use of the Jetty container" bit. Is that more that the core Wicket developers prefer Jetty or is there a killer advantage over the more common Tomcat? [Reposting a paragraph of Igor's to start, in case it looks familiar!] The advantages are that you can quickly get your app running using mvn jetty:jetty command if you want. Even better, when developing you dont need to package your app into a war and deploy it - which are big time wasting steps when you have to do them every ten minutes - instead simply launch the included Start.java and your app is up and running in seconds and includes hotswap. One thing I like about Jetty is that it's normally clear to see what's mounted where, as the default '/' servlet will list them when running 'mvn jetty:run' (although that's not in our Start.java). Of course, having said that, I need to say that I'm having good results with Winstone, where Jetty was having issues (with the non-Wicket connected part of a legacy web-app) - see http://www.nabble.com/Wicket%2C-IDEA-and-Winstone...-p12919201.html /Gwyn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Erik van Oosten http://2008.rubyenrails.nl/ http://www.day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Article on DevX
Well, I guess you can. Still you need to have tomcat installed, whereas with jetty you only need a 300kb jar in project. Also as stated above, you don't need JSP support (compiler, etc) so the footprint is really small. -Matej On 10/15/07, Sam Hough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Still can't see why you can't do "local" debugging with Tomcat. From eclipse > you just start it as an application with main class > "org.apache.catalina.startup.Bootstrap"... I also run Tomcat in OptimizeIt > without any remoting... > > I've no agenda about Tomcat. Was just curious about the preference. I seem > to remember that Jetty is vastly easier to configure from Java source. > Presumably it is also still much smaller. > > Cheers > > Sam > > > > Nino.Martinez wrote: > > > > theres a equallent to mvn jetty:run called mvn tomcat:run... > > > > If devs decided to give up mvn jetty:run then we would loose support for > > debuging with start.java ... As Matej mentions.. > > > > regards Nino > > > > Gwyn Evans wrote: > >> On Monday, October 15, 2007, 11:56:55 AM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> I was interested by the "encourages the use of the Jetty container" bit. > >>> Is > >>> that more that the core Wicket developers prefer Jetty or is there a > >>> killer > >>> advantage over the more common Tomcat? > >>> > >> > >> [Reposting a paragraph of Igor's to start, in case it looks familiar!] > >> > >> The advantages are that you can quickly get your app running using mvn > >> jetty:jetty command if you want. Even better, when developing you dont > >> need to package your app into a war and deploy it - which are big time > >> wasting steps when you have to do them every ten minutes - instead > >> simply launch the included Start.java and your app is up and running > >> in seconds and includes hotswap. > >> > >> One thing I like about Jetty is that it's normally clear to see what's > >> mounted where, as the default '/' servlet will list them when running > >> 'mvn jetty:run' (although that's not in our Start.java). > >> > >> Of course, having said that, I need to say that I'm having good > >> results with Winstone, where Jetty was having issues (with the > >> non-Wicket connected part of a legacy web-app) - see > >> http://www.nabble.com/Wicket%2C-IDEA-and-Winstone...-p12919201.html > >> > >> /Gwyn > >> > >> > >> - > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-Article-on-DevX-tf4623720.html#a13211292 > Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Article on DevX
Still can't see why you can't do "local" debugging with Tomcat. From eclipse you just start it as an application with main class "org.apache.catalina.startup.Bootstrap"... I also run Tomcat in OptimizeIt without any remoting... I've no agenda about Tomcat. Was just curious about the preference. I seem to remember that Jetty is vastly easier to configure from Java source. Presumably it is also still much smaller. Cheers Sam Nino.Martinez wrote: > > theres a equallent to mvn jetty:run called mvn tomcat:run... > > If devs decided to give up mvn jetty:run then we would loose support for > debuging with start.java ... As Matej mentions.. > > regards Nino > > Gwyn Evans wrote: >> On Monday, October 15, 2007, 11:56:55 AM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> I was interested by the "encourages the use of the Jetty container" bit. >>> Is >>> that more that the core Wicket developers prefer Jetty or is there a >>> killer >>> advantage over the more common Tomcat? >>> >> >> [Reposting a paragraph of Igor's to start, in case it looks familiar!] >> >> The advantages are that you can quickly get your app running using mvn >> jetty:jetty command if you want. Even better, when developing you dont >> need to package your app into a war and deploy it - which are big time >> wasting steps when you have to do them every ten minutes - instead >> simply launch the included Start.java and your app is up and running >> in seconds and includes hotswap. >> >> One thing I like about Jetty is that it's normally clear to see what's >> mounted where, as the default '/' servlet will list them when running >> 'mvn jetty:run' (although that's not in our Start.java). >> >> Of course, having said that, I need to say that I'm having good >> results with Winstone, where Jetty was having issues (with the >> non-Wicket connected part of a legacy web-app) - see >> http://www.nabble.com/Wicket%2C-IDEA-and-Winstone...-p12919201.html >> >> /Gwyn >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-Article-on-DevX-tf4623720.html#a13211292 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Article on DevX
theres a equallent to mvn jetty:run called mvn tomcat:run... If devs decided to give up mvn jetty:run then we would loose support for debuging with start.java ... As Matej mentions.. regards Nino Gwyn Evans wrote: On Monday, October 15, 2007, 11:56:55 AM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I was interested by the "encourages the use of the Jetty container" bit. Is that more that the core Wicket developers prefer Jetty or is there a killer advantage over the more common Tomcat? [Reposting a paragraph of Igor's to start, in case it looks familiar!] The advantages are that you can quickly get your app running using mvn jetty:jetty command if you want. Even better, when developing you dont need to package your app into a war and deploy it - which are big time wasting steps when you have to do them every ten minutes - instead simply launch the included Start.java and your app is up and running in seconds and includes hotswap. One thing I like about Jetty is that it's normally clear to see what's mounted where, as the default '/' servlet will list them when running 'mvn jetty:run' (although that's not in our Start.java). Of course, having said that, I need to say that I'm having good results with Winstone, where Jetty was having issues (with the non-Wicket connected part of a legacy web-app) - see http://www.nabble.com/Wicket%2C-IDEA-and-Winstone...-p12919201.html /Gwyn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Article on DevX
Doesn't sound that different from tomcat... I don't build a war or anything and run it just like any java application... Read somewhere that jetty lets you take out JSP support. I've found with Tomcat that it spends a lot of time looking for taglib defs in lucene.jar, wicket.jar... Current project uses hibernate which is so slow starting up it hides that problem though. Cheers Sam Gwyn wrote: > > On Monday, October 15, 2007, 11:56:55 AM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I was interested by the "encourages the use of the Jetty container" bit. >> Is >> that more that the core Wicket developers prefer Jetty or is there a >> killer >> advantage over the more common Tomcat? > > [Reposting a paragraph of Igor's to start, in case it looks familiar!] > > The advantages are that you can quickly get your app running using mvn > jetty:jetty command if you want. Even better, when developing you dont > need to package your app into a war and deploy it - which are big time > wasting steps when you have to do them every ten minutes - instead > simply launch the included Start.java and your app is up and running > in seconds and includes hotswap. > > One thing I like about Jetty is that it's normally clear to see what's > mounted where, as the default '/' servlet will list them when running > 'mvn jetty:run' (although that's not in our Start.java). > > Of course, having said that, I need to say that I'm having good > results with Winstone, where Jetty was having issues (with the > non-Wicket connected part of a legacy web-app) - see > http://www.nabble.com/Wicket%2C-IDEA-and-Winstone...-p12919201.html > > /Gwyn > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-Article-on-DevX-tf4623720.html#a13210890 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Article on DevX
We mostly use jetty as embedded in the project itself. Then starting a web application is as simple as starting any other java application. Also debugging is much simpler. No need to configure remote debug connection, not to mention that you need to configure separate ports if you want to debug e.g. 2 application instances. -Matej On 10/15/07, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday, October 15, 2007, 11:56:55 AM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I was interested by the "encourages the use of the Jetty container" bit. Is > > that more that the core Wicket developers prefer Jetty or is there a killer > > advantage over the more common Tomcat? > > [Reposting a paragraph of Igor's to start, in case it looks familiar!] > > The advantages are that you can quickly get your app running using mvn > jetty:jetty command if you want. Even better, when developing you dont > need to package your app into a war and deploy it - which are big time > wasting steps when you have to do them every ten minutes - instead > simply launch the included Start.java and your app is up and running > in seconds and includes hotswap. > > One thing I like about Jetty is that it's normally clear to see what's > mounted where, as the default '/' servlet will list them when running > 'mvn jetty:run' (although that's not in our Start.java). > > Of course, having said that, I need to say that I'm having good > results with Winstone, where Jetty was having issues (with the > non-Wicket connected part of a legacy web-app) - see > http://www.nabble.com/Wicket%2C-IDEA-and-Winstone...-p12919201.html > > /Gwyn > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Article on DevX
On Monday, October 15, 2007, 11:56:55 AM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was interested by the "encourages the use of the Jetty container" bit. Is > that more that the core Wicket developers prefer Jetty or is there a killer > advantage over the more common Tomcat? [Reposting a paragraph of Igor's to start, in case it looks familiar!] The advantages are that you can quickly get your app running using mvn jetty:jetty command if you want. Even better, when developing you dont need to package your app into a war and deploy it - which are big time wasting steps when you have to do them every ten minutes - instead simply launch the included Start.java and your app is up and running in seconds and includes hotswap. One thing I like about Jetty is that it's normally clear to see what's mounted where, as the default '/' servlet will list them when running 'mvn jetty:run' (although that's not in our Start.java). Of course, having said that, I need to say that I'm having good results with Winstone, where Jetty was having issues (with the non-Wicket connected part of a legacy web-app) - see http://www.nabble.com/Wicket%2C-IDEA-and-Winstone...-p12919201.html /Gwyn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Article on DevX
Congratulaions on the article. I was interested by the "encourages the use of the Jetty container" bit. Is that more that the core Wicket developers prefer Jetty or is there a killer advantage over the more common Tomcat? Cheers Sam -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-Article-on-DevX-tf4623720.html#a13210308 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Article on DevX
+1 -igor On 10/14/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey Daniel, great stuff! Thanks! > > Eelco > > On 10/14/07, Daniel Carleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello Wicket, > > > > I wrote an introductory article on Wicket for DevX, which they > > published a few days back (will go front page after a few typos are > > fixed). I tried to include lots of practical information on the > > framework's design and usage. I hope it helps to turn more people on > > to Wicket! > > > > http://www.devx.com/Java/Article/35620 > > > > Congratulations on the upcoming 1.3 release, and thanks to everyone > > on IRC (esp. chillenious, matej, and ivaynberg) who fielded my Wicket > > questions all summer. > > > > - Daniel (dacc) > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Wicket Article on DevX
Hey Daniel, great stuff! Thanks! Eelco On 10/14/07, Daniel Carleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Wicket, > > I wrote an introductory article on Wicket for DevX, which they > published a few days back (will go front page after a few typos are > fixed). I tried to include lots of practical information on the > framework's design and usage. I hope it helps to turn more people on > to Wicket! > > http://www.devx.com/Java/Article/35620 > > Congratulations on the upcoming 1.3 release, and thanks to everyone > on IRC (esp. chillenious, matej, and ivaynberg) who fielded my Wicket > questions all summer. > > - Daniel (dacc) > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
