On 3/5/06, Yaroslav Sokolov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 3/5/06, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It seems this patch won't pass - but maybe other patches could make at > > least > > small improvements in reducing the required memory use, and let users do > > the > > trade they want. > > > I do not position this patch as solution of the problem. This patch is > just illustration > that there is such a problem and it is possible to be solved solved. >
We actually know that jsp is keeping all content as class data for a very long time :-). And also suspect it can be solved - there are few other things tried in the past. And finally, it is interesting the oppinion if we want to unload > jsp-servlets at all or not. > (My opinion is that we should not waste memory by rare or just-once used > things, as > finally it makes the web server out of service.) > It seems the answer is no - tomcat require consensus and at least Remy is -1. I kind if agree it's not the right solution ( most people don't expect jsps to get unloaded, and don't code for that ) - but I tought it might be a nice option to have. If you really need this - try a different patch, and check with Remy on what are his concerns and how to address them. If yes, I offer to have fixed maximal number of loaded jsp-servlets per > web-application > and true handling of this policy. I mean, that is must not be possible to > have at the > same time more loaded jsp-servlets than it is set by the policy. Of > course, such a > policy should be optional. > > Implementation of such a policy, as I already have written, is more > complex patch than > the illustration: "as internal structure containing jsp-servlets, it > seems, was not designed for > such actions..." > Yes, it may be better to fix jasper and do the harder solutions. My understanding of Remy's veto is that JSPs should behave like all servlets - i.e. shouldn't get unloaded or loaded unexpectedly. It was also my concern ( users not expecting jsps to get unloaded, and using statics, etc) So you will need a more complex patch - I suggested unloading the string tables ( which in your case are the bulk of the memory used ), but there are probably other solutions as well. Good luck, IMO it would be great to have this improved ! Costin
