On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote: > > However it's not the only way to do things - and I prefer to not > > depend on the wrapper that starts tomcat to do it ( there are > > many other good ways to start tomcat without requiring the daemon ) > > If it's "good ways to start tomcat" as a daemon, then I disagree (except if > it's when embedded through JNI in Apache). At best, it will work as good as > with the daemon code, so why bother ?
Because there is not 'a single ( or only ) good way to start tomcat'. If doing a JNI call works and is a good solution, why reinventing the wheel ? The daemon requires using an init()-like method and a certain architecture - which the other solution doesn't. Even for tomcat4.0, it would make my life more difficult if jk needs to do something as root ( given that I'm trying to make jk a self-contained trusted application that doesn't require changes in server.xml ). In general, I don't like the 'starter' to impose constraints or dictate the design of the application, especially when the same feature can be implemented without this constraint and in a simpler manner. I don't like the container to impose too many constraints on the application either. It's the old "push versus pull" - or IOC versus 'straight' programming. I have nothing against IOC as long as it doesn't try to force to be the 'only' way. > Ok, I'll send then an email. > And would participate in the project ? Yes, I think the 'wrapper' is very good and promissing. I already sent them an email, but if you want to take care of this - it's great. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
