Pier Fumagalli wrote: > "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Extensibility capabilities will be added to Coyote, as well as JMX management >>features, and if possible, addional protocol handlers (like WARP 1.0). > > > As far as I would like to see WARP and its future development, it'll > probably end up following a different container architecture. The > extenization of the HTTP stack from the core of the container brings some > advantages to the engine, but as well this need to introduce a different > layering scheme for the components, such as the removal of <Host>.
I'm not sure I quite understand why you say that. In that deployment scenario, you use: - Coyote HTTP/1.1 - Catalina 2.0 and this is not fundamentally different that the current Tomcat 4.1. The main difference is that the loader will probably be different, but you'll still be able to use the old one if you need to. Actually, if you package the current o.a.c.connector classes with the webapp classes, you should be able (maybe after adding one or two new methods for the new Servlet API, but it shouldn't be too hard) to run Webapp 1.0 on TC 5. > Plus, for security reasons, I want WebApp to follow the trend of being > slimmer, therefore not inheriting the whole "Tomcat" weight, but letting it > do only _the_ container, with no kits or caboodle attached to it... Apache > is my platform, there is where I will want and add complexity. Tomcat, just > a servlet container (IMO)... Rewriting WARP for Coyote wouldn't be that difficult, IMO. It just changes the way you communicate with your lower layer, and that's about it. I believe Costin wants to improve the "action" stuff used currently to be more flexible and powerful. In return, you get a GC friendly behavior of the connector, higher performance, and it should also be easier to adapt to future version of Tomcat and / or may be used by other containers. > This is where I want to end up to. Frankly at this point in time I don't > think that carrying on with the development of components such as the HTTP > connector, or other tomcat "features" (GZIP on-the-fly compression, CGI > support, JMX support), matters to me... I can understand. Usually, you lose interest in a project as soon as it does whatever you want it to do :) There are some exceptions, but I really can understand that. > I want, and I'm getting there, only a servlet container able to handle some > 10/15 millions servlet-based requests/day. Therefore also approaches such as > JNI are definitely out for high availability approach... Load balancing with node failure tolerance (like the one provided by JK) could help there. Did you look at JK 2 at all ? > Given the latest developments, I seriously don't think I want to be carrying > on with TC5.0 anymore, I'll just (as always) do what matters to me, and if > it works for me, I'm set... I'd like to keep you involved if I can. Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
