----- Original Message ----- From: "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:51 PM Subject: Re: Jk2 object model
> Mladen Turk wrote: > >>From: Costin Manolache > >> > >>So my suggestion ( deja vue ? ) is to use "evolution" :-). A change in > >>the OO model ( if needed ) or fixing/improving the current one is not > >>as big change as it seems - it's mostly in initialization code. > >> > > > > > > How about 'revolution'? On the other hand how does the evolution differs > > from revolution? > > > My point was that fixing/improving the current code - maybe by first > fixing the object model, then adding modules - is better than starting > from scratch or trying to make a huge change at once. > You pushed for an 'evolution' for TC5, and look what it got us: The most stable Tomcat GA release ever ;-). > > > > > and... > > If we don't put ourselfs out from 'reusable' concept, nothing new will ever > > be done thought. > > Trying to reclyle something, as you nicely said "stable and done", is > > poinntless from the '(r)evolution' perspective. > > It's not "recycle" - but improve. And I don't know why you feel it's > pointless. > > > > > > Either we'll do (like Monty Pyton's said) something completely different, or > > we'll be once again asking ourselfs the same questions for year or so, and > > the guys will still use the JK or swith to something else. > > Doing something completely different for the sake of doing it different > and without understanding or knowing what is wrong with the current > approach is not going to lead us to something better - just different. > Could actually be said for much of Jk2. However, the Jk2 code is much more maintainable, so I'd prefer to 'evolve' from there. The reasons that I'm sticking to Jk1 for all of my production servers are pretty small, and fixable. > So far I haven't heard any concrete proposal of doing something > different - just nice goals ( "easier config", etc ). IMO using JMX-like > model you can support almost any config needs - zeroconf/randezvous/etc. > And the performance is result of lots of work and tunning - I never seen > any "rewrite from scratch, completely different" project to be faster ( > at least not in less than few years ). Same for stability BTW. > Well, to be a little nicer than Costin, so far we have seen an abstract idea of sending the request to Tomcat to ask if it wants to map it (avoiding the double-mapping that we do now). However, the revolutionaries out there need to put together a [PROPOSAL] first before there can be a decision on revolusion vs. evolusion. There is a page on the Jakarta site spelling this out, from the last time this issue almost split this community apart :). > > > Costin > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) listed above as the intended recipient(s), and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not read, copy, or distribute this message or any attachment. If you received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and then delete all copies of this message and any attachments. In addition you should be aware that ordinary (unencrypted) e-mail sent through the Internet is not secure. Do not send confidential or sensitive information, such as social security numbers, account numbers, personal identification numbers and passwords, to us via ordinary (unencrypted) e-mail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
