Ok, I can make the next conclusions: 1. Tomcat eats resources on first opening of any jsp page and never returns them back - servlets just are never unloaded. 2. As it happens in all the versions of Tomcat, there are many jsps, not meeting requirements of the specification (no destroy() method when there is some useful data in fields) but well working under Tomcat. 3. We do not want to change this situation ( -> I shall not even try to send any better patch here :-\ (but I will ;-) ) )
One more conclusion - if all the jsp content of our web site does not fit in memory, we should buy more memory. Else we must not use jsp technology in all the pages. We should choose something other than jsp, for example velocity, SSI,... P.S. by the way, when web application is unloaded such bad jsps lose data anyway. On 06/03/06, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > > > > -- Regards, Yaroslav Sokolov.
