Starting is different from stopping. Yes, the spec allows unloading - but in reality most JSPs and servlets can't deal well with that. And the argument that it is optional doesn't work - in many cases the person who writes the servlet/jsp is not the same as the person who is running the production server or does the configuration tunning.
There are subtle bugs that may show up when this feature would be enabled - people doing the config might be tempted to reduce memory use, and this would result in extremely hard to reproduce and debug problems. By 'spec compliance' I mean more 'compatibility with the existing spec _and_ the current usage of the spec'. The later is IMO more important in many cases than the letter or any interpretation of the spec. Costin On 3/6/06, Yaroslav Sokolov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 04/03/06, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Costin Manolache wrote: > > > But it's a separate issue - I agree that unloading unused jsps is the > > > most important. > > > > The recommended production usage (= optimal) of JSPs is when they are > > precommpiled, which means that the Jasper servlet is not used, and the > > JSPs are plain servlets. Their lifecycle is then identical to the > > lifecycle of servlets. > > > I do not see any reason, why different servlets could not have different > life cycles. > Even more, the last sentence is in contrary to current implementation - > some servlets can be loaded not on demand, but on starting of a web > application. > So, their life cycle has already been _not_ identical to the life cycle of > other servlets. > > > I understand the Jasper servlet is junk, and is a testing ground for bad > > ideas, though (ex: the background compilation thread, and now this). > > > > Rémy > > > > -- > Regards, > Yaroslav Sokolov. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
