I have to disagree with any statement like this - nobody can decide that his use case is the 'main' use case for tomcat.
Yes, tomcat is used in a lot of production environments where speed and manageability are important. But it is also used by developers ( and I suspect for each production site you have few dozen developer instances ), it is used in IDEs like eclipse/idea/etc. Tomcat is also used to deploy large number of very small apps, or small number of large apps, or small set of small apps :-) Not sure what is the plan for commons-modeler, I think it is worth to bring it back to tomcat or fork a separate implementation, not using model mbeans and simplifying the model. I think JMX is a great tool, and is essential to support it - but there are ways to do it without bloat, and it's a valid target for optimizations. Costin On 4/25/06, Jess Holle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Remy Maucherat wrote: > > Abhi Karmos wrote: > >> Has anybody looked in the code where the DescriptorSupport class is > >> used? 22 thousand of these things is simply absurd. Nearly 100 > >> thousand DescriptorSupport.ValueHolder objects is even crazier. My > >> guess is that the HashMap usage is related to the DescriptorSupport. > > It is completely irrelevant compared to the memory usage of a single > > "modern" web application, and at the same time it provides a useful > > monitoring feature without being intrusive coding wise. Sure, we could > > use standard MBeans, but the code would then be a mess. I don't > > understand the point of bothering with this sort of stuff when there's > > so little benefit. > Despite my tone in my previous e-mail on this thread, I tend to agree > with Remy that the Tomcat folk have bigger fish to fry. An extra 10MB > of overhead is not the top priority for most Tomcat users. > > Even without using standard MBeans I could certainly see dynamic MBeans > with per-target-object-class caching eliminating most of this additional > memory footprint. Modeled MBeans are likely as capable of this as any > other dynamic MBeans -- and if not that would be a reason not to use > them in *future* projects. [Commons "Dynamic" anyone?] > > All the same, the MBeans generally do what's needful in Tomcat and I'd > thus hate to see any "cleanup" in this area take precendence over "real" > stuff. > > If you want the smallest web container in terms of memory usage or > > size, I think you should not be using Tomcat. Tomcat is more geared > > towards speed, GC friendliness and feature completeness than memory > > usage. > Agreed. > > I notice that many of the Tomcat MBeans actually provide fairly useful > attribute and MBean descriptions. I also notice a good number of MBeans > with no MBean-level description, however. Same for operations, > operation parameter names and operation parameter descriptions. Fixing > this seems like a higher priority than introducing MBean > descriptor/MBeanInfo sharing at this point. > > -- > Jess Holle > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
