On 3/5/06, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Costin Manolache wrote: > > On 3/5/06, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I also don't see any need to have zillions of JSPs filled with template > >> text, especially if you're willing to take a small performance hit > >> (there's that thing called dynamic includes which could be used to > >> handle large portions of static text). > > > > > > Well, unfortunately tomcat-dev's role is to implement a servlet > container, > > not to > > decide how people should use it and how many JSPs or other technologies > > should > > the use, or how they should set up their hardware :-) > > I don't think it's good to target a single use case or set of users - > i.e. > > huge servers, and > > sites with small enough number of JSPs to fit in memory. > > This is blatantly false. tomcat-dev's role is to come up with an > implementation. There's nowhere anything specified about complying with > anyone's needs. Here, I consider the needs of this user ridiculous, so I > will not even consider them.
Using less memory and supporting users who don't run tomcat on huge servers is not ridiculous. And 'this is not my use case' is not a valid reason to veto IMO. >>> Many cases would benefit from more control over memory - hosting or > >>> embedded or sites with lots of jsps or lots of data. Forcing all > >>> static content in memory is not the best use of the memory. > >> There's no other solution really. Any other implementation will perform > >> bad, due to the very fragmented nature of static text. > > > > Apache seems to do ok with serving static text without loading it all in > > memory :-) > > And except JSP, I don't know many other templating solution that > requires > > all data > > to be in memory - of course, not everything is as fast as JSP, but raw > > speed is not > > the only concern :-) > > You are trolling here. I would be more than happy to serve JSPs as > static text, but somehow I cannot. Again, JSPs are not a regular > templating solution since they have to be compiled. This is not all bad, > since this allows easy optimizations too (for example, the JSPs are GC > friendly). How are JSPs GC friendly ??? By keeping all strings referenced by the class, so they can't be GC until the webapp is unloaded ? I think it is perfectly possible to compile JSPs in a different way - the current compilation is not the only solution or only way to generate java from the jsps. I also agree with you that JSPs are complex enough that messing with the code generation is too dangerous - I wouldn't touch it, but if some people have patches, we should consider them. Costin
