On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:47 AM, Jason Brittain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:57 AM, Tim Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Costin Manolache wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Cool. In a nutshell
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:57 AM, Tim Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Costin Manolache wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>> Cool. In a nutshell - I like all the ideas.
>>
>> But while I like the idea of ditching Valves/LifecycleListen
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:57 AM, Tim Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Costin Manolache wrote:
>
>>
>>
>
> Cool. In a nutshell - I like all the ideas.
>
> But while I like the idea of ditching Valves/LifecycleListeners - how does
> this work when the component needs to work across multiple Servlet
Costin Manolache wrote:
Cool. In a nutshell - I like all the ideas.
But while I like the idea of ditching Valves/LifecycleListeners - how
does this work when the component needs to work across multiple
ServletContext's? The only reason I see that Valves/LifecycleListeners
need to yet exist
On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 20:44 -0700, Costin Manolache wrote:
> > > - Valves/LifecycleListeners versus plain Filters and listeners
> >
> > Personally, I think the strong type barrier between userland and the
> > container is nice.
> >
>
> Access to low-level container objects ( which is the 'barrier'
Thanks for all the answers so far - I'll start a new thread for the first
part of the process,
with more details on the coyote changes. The help I need most is review and
comments
from people who spent most time with coyote. The goal of tomcat-lite is to
be small and simple -
hopefully it wont have
Remy Maucherat wrote:
I am interested to look at the code like the proxy, and see if what it
can do.
I have been longing for a Java-based load-balancing proxy replacement
for Apache httpd. Essentially with non-blocking IO it would seem high
time to replace Apache httpd with a Java-based web
On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 21:13 -0700, Costin Manolache wrote:
> I think moving forward, for tomcat-7 and beyond - it would be worth
> reconsidering some of the 10-year-old decisions, and
> tomcat-lite can be a good example on how things can be done
differently:
I still don't intend to participate in
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and easier to embed variant. I think it's time to see what can be
> contributed back to tomcat main branch, what can be
> released, and what needs to be retired or moved out.
Overall, a huge +1. I think this is the be
I for one happen to think this is a great idea (generally).
More specifically, for at least one small web application (where Tomcat is
stripped down and embedded), I have been tempted to strip out the servlet
support code (for a number of reasons).
>> If you read this far - I don't want to start a flame war, but I appreciate
>> all feedback :-). My current goal is to
>> 'graduate' the first 2 components, the others can stay longer in sandbox or
>> be moved out - but since they rely on
>> the first 2 I would have to clone a lot of tomcat code
> Hi,
>
> About 2 years ago (closer to 3) I started a sandbox experiment with the goal
> of refactoring tomcat to a smaller
> and easier to embed variant. I think it's time to see what can be
> contributed back to tomcat main branch, what can be
> released, and what needs to be retired or moved ou
12 matches
Mail list logo
