You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by co...@covalent.net on 2002/06/25 19:06:35 UTC
HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
> >> Pier could you detail what should be a Tomcat HA, and how
> >> it could fit in TC 5.0 proposal ?
> >
> >As far as I can remember it was voted -1...
>
> What about TC 5.0 with HA capability ?
TC5.0 will have a 'higher availability' then 4.1 which is better
than 4.0. Same goes for 3.3 versus 3.2, and so on.
<rant -stop reading if you're not interested in flames -->
I am trying as hard as possible to remain calm and on the
subject when discussing with 'angry' Pier - but the FUD he
is using is unbelievable.
He can't use tomcat4.0 in production ? Maybe he's trying to
do that with mod_webapp ( with no load balancing AFAIK, and
'auto configuration' ). And he complains about features -
well, Apache is full of features, and most people know how
to not enable the modules that they don't need on a production
site.
Now he proposes a "HA tomcat" - as if all our efforts in
so far has been in adding useless features and nobody else
cares about HA. Well, if you would pay attention a lot of
work is beeing put in improving the lb ( an essential factor
for HA ), in adding management ( guess what - JMX is not only
for configuration, but also for getting runtime info and notifications ),
and in improving the low-level objects to beter deal with the load
( that's coyote ) plus for 5.0 a simpler core that would allow
more modularity ( coyote again ).
And the solution he proposes: removing 'useless' features like
jasper or JMX.
Well, I know quite a few people who managed to get tomcat in
production on a variety of sites ( including very large loads).
Even with tomcat3.2 - a generation behind the current 3.3 and 4.0.
They do that using load balancing and customizing the installation.
Unfortunately Pier's tomcat4.0 doesn't support load balancing,
and it seems he's having problems with the admin module of 4.1.
Well, send a patch - or just disable the offending module in
your code.
Tomcat out-of-box is feature full and more intended for developers
( who greatly outnumber the 'production sites'). If you read
the 5.0 proposal, it allows ( or includes ) the ability to
release customized tomcats.
Of course, nobody stops Pier on working on whatever he wants -
a -1 means he can't do it in the main branch and he can't use
the name 'tomcat', but the proposal/ area has allwasy been open.
If he can get a 'higher availability' than we'll get with 5.0 -
great, we'll all be happy.
But now Pier treatens he'll just leave us oprhapns ( without
a father). I certainly hope he's not serious with that, and if he
does - I hope he'll return. And in the meantime he may try to
learn to be a bit more polite and modest - and control his
frustrations.
</rant>
Costin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
costinm@covalent.net wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
>
>
>>>>Pier could you detail what should be a Tomcat HA, and how
>>>>it could fit in TC 5.0 proposal ?
>>>
>>>As far as I can remember it was voted -1...
>>
>>What about TC 5.0 with HA capability ?
>
>
> TC5.0 will have a 'higher availability' then 4.1 which is better
> than 4.0. Same goes for 3.3 versus 3.2, and so on.
>
> <rant -stop reading if you're not interested in flames -->
>
> I am trying as hard as possible to remain calm and on the
> subject when discussing with 'angry' Pier - but the FUD he
> is using is unbelievable.
>
> He can't use tomcat4.0 in production ? Maybe he's trying to
> do that with mod_webapp ( with no load balancing AFAIK, and
> 'auto configuration' ). And he complains about features -
> well, Apache is full of features, and most people know how
> to not enable the modules that they don't need on a production
> site.
>
> Now he proposes a "HA tomcat" - as if all our efforts in
> so far has been in adding useless features and nobody else
> cares about HA. Well, if you would pay attention a lot of
> work is beeing put in improving the lb ( an essential factor
> for HA ), in adding management ( guess what - JMX is not only
> for configuration, but also for getting runtime info and notifications ),
> and in improving the low-level objects to beter deal with the load
> ( that's coyote ) plus for 5.0 a simpler core that would allow
> more modularity ( coyote again ).
>
> And the solution he proposes: removing 'useless' features like
> jasper or JMX.
>
> Well, I know quite a few people who managed to get tomcat in
> production on a variety of sites ( including very large loads).
> Even with tomcat3.2 - a generation behind the current 3.3 and 4.0.
> They do that using load balancing and customizing the installation.
> Unfortunately Pier's tomcat4.0 doesn't support load balancing,
> and it seems he's having problems with the admin module of 4.1.
> Well, send a patch - or just disable the offending module in
> your code.
>
> Tomcat out-of-box is feature full and more intended for developers
> ( who greatly outnumber the 'production sites'). If you read
> the 5.0 proposal, it allows ( or includes ) the ability to
> release customized tomcats.
>
> Of course, nobody stops Pier on working on whatever he wants -
> a -1 means he can't do it in the main branch and he can't use
> the name 'tomcat', but the proposal/ area has allwasy been open.
> If he can get a 'higher availability' than we'll get with 5.0 -
> great, we'll all be happy.
>
> But now Pier treatens he'll just leave us oprhapns ( without
> a father). I certainly hope he's not serious with that, and if he
> does - I hope he'll return. And in the meantime he may try to
> learn to be a bit more polite and modest - and control his
> frustrations.
>
> </rant>
Even omitting personal comments from the rant (which I have to admit I
share), you did a sooo impressive work on improving Tomcat HA-level
during the 3.0-3.1-3.2-3.3 releases that I definitely trust you to help
take Tomcat 5.0 to the next HA-level.
On a side note, it would be really nice if Tomcat developers could STOP
writing blanket FUD-style statements about whatever module / the
container / etc when they didn't even care to review the code.
Remy
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)
Posted by co...@covalent.net.
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Huy Tran wrote:
> Mathias,
>
> Thanks for the encouraged news. We've been using Tomcat in our product
> for a while now. Now, I need to set it up with support for minimum 100K
> simultaneous connection to our server side. If you could share some of
> your knowledge how you did it with your site, it would be tremendously
> helpful for me and many other Tomcat user out there.
100k simultaneous connections ??? Well, that's a lot.
Depending on the request and hardware, you could run 1-200
RPS on one tomcat - but you would need a pretty large farm to load
balance 100.000.
I would use few hardware load balancers, and several apache
boxes in front of the farm.
Hopefully not all of the requests will be for dynamic content -
so you may be able to handle it. But I've never seen 100.000
concurent users ( well, google probably has more - and is
certainly not impossible - but it'll take some work )
Costin
>
> Regards,
>
> Huy Tran.
>
> Mathias Herberts wrote:
>
> >costinm@covalent.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>Pier could you detail what should be a Tomcat HA, and how
> >>>>>it could fit in TC 5.0 proposal ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>As far as I can remember it was voted -1...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>What about TC 5.0 with HA capability ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>TC5.0 will have a 'higher availability' then 4.1 which is better
> >>than 4.0. Same goes for 3.3 versus 3.2, and so on.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >
> >
> >>Well, I know quite a few people who managed to get tomcat in
> >>production on a variety of sites ( including very large loads).
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I run Tomcat on 20 or so production web sites, with volumes in the
> >2/3 million hits per day mark. I've been running Tomcat since march
> >2000, starting with 3.2.1.
> >
> >I think with a little of involvment it is easy to set up a high
> >availability environment using Apache/Tomcat and maybe hardware load
> >balancers. Maybe what is missing is a good tutorial on such a setup.
> >Maybe I could start thinking about writing something about our setup. We
> >came up with neat tricks to handle live application upgrade and this
> >sort of things. I don't know where this could fit in but it is
> >definitely the kind of HOWTO that could be good for the spread of Tomcat
> >on production environments.
> >
> >As for the pure servlet speed Tomcat can deliver, from what I see
> >everyday, the bottleneck is usually in the data tier and not in the
> >application server, so this is a purely sterile debate in my opinion.
> >
> >Just my 2 cents of euro worth.
> >
> >Mathias.
> >
> >--
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> >For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)
Posted by Huy Tran <ht...@endeavors.com>.
Mathias,
Thanks for the encouraged news. We've been using Tomcat in our product
for a while now. Now, I need to set it up with support for minimum 100K
simultaneous connection to our server side. If you could share some of
your knowledge how you did it with your site, it would be tremendously
helpful for me and many other Tomcat user out there.
Regards,
Huy Tran.
Mathias Herberts wrote:
>costinm@covalent.net wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>Pier could you detail what should be a Tomcat HA, and how
>>>>>it could fit in TC 5.0 proposal ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>As far as I can remember it was voted -1...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>What about TC 5.0 with HA capability ?
>>>
>>>
>>TC5.0 will have a 'higher availability' then 4.1 which is better
>>than 4.0. Same goes for 3.3 versus 3.2, and so on.
>>
>>
>
>[snip]
>
>
>
>>Well, I know quite a few people who managed to get tomcat in
>>production on a variety of sites ( including very large loads).
>>
>>
>
>I run Tomcat on 20 or so production web sites, with volumes in the
>2/3 million hits per day mark. I've been running Tomcat since march
>2000, starting with 3.2.1.
>
>I think with a little of involvment it is easy to set up a high
>availability environment using Apache/Tomcat and maybe hardware load
>balancers. Maybe what is missing is a good tutorial on such a setup.
>Maybe I could start thinking about writing something about our setup. We
>came up with neat tricks to handle live application upgrade and this
>sort of things. I don't know where this could fit in but it is
>definitely the kind of HOWTO that could be good for the spread of Tomcat
>on production environments.
>
>As for the pure servlet speed Tomcat can deliver, from what I see
>everyday, the bottleneck is usually in the data tier and not in the
>application server, so this is a purely sterile debate in my opinion.
>
>Just my 2 cents of euro worth.
>
>Mathias.
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
Re: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)
Posted by Mathias Herberts <Ma...@iroise.net>.
costinm@covalent.net wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
>
> > >> Pier could you detail what should be a Tomcat HA, and how
> > >> it could fit in TC 5.0 proposal ?
> > >
> > >As far as I can remember it was voted -1...
> >
> > What about TC 5.0 with HA capability ?
>
> TC5.0 will have a 'higher availability' then 4.1 which is better
> than 4.0. Same goes for 3.3 versus 3.2, and so on.
[snip]
> Well, I know quite a few people who managed to get tomcat in
> production on a variety of sites ( including very large loads).
I run Tomcat on 20 or so production web sites, with volumes in the
2/3 million hits per day mark. I've been running Tomcat since march
2000, starting with 3.2.1.
I think with a little of involvment it is easy to set up a high
availability environment using Apache/Tomcat and maybe hardware load
balancers. Maybe what is missing is a good tutorial on such a setup.
Maybe I could start thinking about writing something about our setup. We
came up with neat tricks to handle live application upgrade and this
sort of things. I don't know where this could fit in but it is
definitely the kind of HOWTO that could be good for the spread of Tomcat
on production environments.
As for the pure servlet speed Tomcat can deliver, from what I see
everyday, the bottleneck is usually in the data tier and not in the
application server, so this is a purely sterile debate in my opinion.
Just my 2 cents of euro worth.
Mathias.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)
Posted by "Craig R. McClanahan" <cr...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, John Trollinger wrote:
> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 13:19:40 -0400
> From: John Trollinger <ja...@trollingers.com>
> Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
> To: 'Tomcat Developers List' <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)
>
> Although Pier is sometimes harsh with his words he does have some valid
> points. I would be nice for tomcat to be somewhat modular so if all you
> want is a servlet engine just get those components.
I'd say both the 3.3 and 4.0/4.1 architectures are already pretty modular
-- is there something specific that you consider monolithic that should be
factored apart? Or is it just that finer-grained build.xml targets would
do what you want?
> This also goes with
> moving the CVS repositories.. so you can get only the modules you want
> and build the parts of tomcat that you need with out all the overhead.
>
The Apache infrastructure folks (well, at least some of them) tend to
frown on multiple CVS repositories for a single project, and they've got a
point -- the number of CVS repositories has nothing to do with how many
deliverable distributions you can create from them. For example, the
jakarta-commons and jakarta-taglibs repositories each host lots of
independently released packages, while a single Tomcat release
combines code from 5-10 independent repositories.
Craig
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: costinm@covalent.net [mailto:costinm@covalent.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 1:07 PM
> To: Tomcat Developers List
> Subject: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)
>
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
>
> > >> Pier could you detail what should be a Tomcat HA, and how
> > >> it could fit in TC 5.0 proposal ?
> > >
> > >As far as I can remember it was voted -1...
> >
> > What about TC 5.0 with HA capability ?
>
> TC5.0 will have a 'higher availability' then 4.1 which is better
> than 4.0. Same goes for 3.3 versus 3.2, and so on.
>
> <rant -stop reading if you're not interested in flames -->
>
> I am trying as hard as possible to remain calm and on the
> subject when discussing with 'angry' Pier - but the FUD he
> is using is unbelievable.
>
> He can't use tomcat4.0 in production ? Maybe he's trying to
> do that with mod_webapp ( with no load balancing AFAIK, and
> 'auto configuration' ). And he complains about features -
> well, Apache is full of features, and most people know how
> to not enable the modules that they don't need on a production
> site.
>
> Now he proposes a "HA tomcat" - as if all our efforts in
> so far has been in adding useless features and nobody else
> cares about HA. Well, if you would pay attention a lot of
> work is beeing put in improving the lb ( an essential factor
> for HA ), in adding management ( guess what - JMX is not only
> for configuration, but also for getting runtime info and notifications
> ),
> and in improving the low-level objects to beter deal with the load
> ( that's coyote ) plus for 5.0 a simpler core that would allow
> more modularity ( coyote again ).
>
> And the solution he proposes: removing 'useless' features like
> jasper or JMX.
>
> Well, I know quite a few people who managed to get tomcat in
> production on a variety of sites ( including very large loads).
> Even with tomcat3.2 - a generation behind the current 3.3 and 4.0.
> They do that using load balancing and customizing the installation.
> Unfortunately Pier's tomcat4.0 doesn't support load balancing,
> and it seems he's having problems with the admin module of 4.1.
> Well, send a patch - or just disable the offending module in
> your code.
>
> Tomcat out-of-box is feature full and more intended for developers
> ( who greatly outnumber the 'production sites'). If you read
> the 5.0 proposal, it allows ( or includes ) the ability to
> release customized tomcats.
>
> Of course, nobody stops Pier on working on whatever he wants -
> a -1 means he can't do it in the main branch and he can't use
> the name 'tomcat', but the proposal/ area has allwasy been open.
> If he can get a 'higher availability' than we'll get with 5.0 -
> great, we'll all be happy.
>
> But now Pier treatens he'll just leave us oprhapns ( without
> a father). I certainly hope he's not serious with that, and if he
> does - I hope he'll return. And in the meantime he may try to
> learn to be a bit more polite and modest - and control his
> frustrations.
>
> </rant>
>
> Costin
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)
Posted by co...@covalent.net.
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, John Trollinger wrote:
> Although Pier is sometimes harsh with his words he does have some valid
> points. I would be nice for tomcat to be somewhat modular so if all you
> want is a servlet engine just get those components. This also goes with
> moving the CVS repositories.. so you can get only the modules you want
> and build the parts of tomcat that you need with out all the overhead.
I run tomcat on my sharp Zaurus, using a J2ME VM - it's the developer
edition, with about 16M heap ( out of 32 M RAM ). The whole installation
is below 1.5M ( well, with crimson.jar taking a lot of space - but it
can be replaced with a smaller parser ).
I agree it is a bit bloated, and I hope 5.0 will fit in 512K.
If people are too lazy to remove the stuff they don't need on a production
site - we could easily provide a 'tomcat lazy edition'. Since most
users are lazy developers, that's what the default release includes.
Are you enabling all the modules that comes with Apache by default ?
Or maybe all the possible modules ( mod_auth_ldap, mod_dav, etc ) ?
Do you see any apache distribution that includes just part of the
code, with the modules that Pier doesn't use left out ?
Costin
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: costinm@covalent.net [mailto:costinm@covalent.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 1:07 PM
> To: Tomcat Developers List
> Subject: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)
>
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
>
> > >> Pier could you detail what should be a Tomcat HA, and how
> > >> it could fit in TC 5.0 proposal ?
> > >
> > >As far as I can remember it was voted -1...
> >
> > What about TC 5.0 with HA capability ?
>
> TC5.0 will have a 'higher availability' then 4.1 which is better
> than 4.0. Same goes for 3.3 versus 3.2, and so on.
>
> <rant -stop reading if you're not interested in flames -->
>
> I am trying as hard as possible to remain calm and on the
> subject when discussing with 'angry' Pier - but the FUD he
> is using is unbelievable.
>
> He can't use tomcat4.0 in production ? Maybe he's trying to
> do that with mod_webapp ( with no load balancing AFAIK, and
> 'auto configuration' ). And he complains about features -
> well, Apache is full of features, and most people know how
> to not enable the modules that they don't need on a production
> site.
>
> Now he proposes a "HA tomcat" - as if all our efforts in
> so far has been in adding useless features and nobody else
> cares about HA. Well, if you would pay attention a lot of
> work is beeing put in improving the lb ( an essential factor
> for HA ), in adding management ( guess what - JMX is not only
> for configuration, but also for getting runtime info and notifications
> ),
> and in improving the low-level objects to beter deal with the load
> ( that's coyote ) plus for 5.0 a simpler core that would allow
> more modularity ( coyote again ).
>
> And the solution he proposes: removing 'useless' features like
> jasper or JMX.
>
> Well, I know quite a few people who managed to get tomcat in
> production on a variety of sites ( including very large loads).
> Even with tomcat3.2 - a generation behind the current 3.3 and 4.0.
> They do that using load balancing and customizing the installation.
> Unfortunately Pier's tomcat4.0 doesn't support load balancing,
> and it seems he's having problems with the admin module of 4.1.
> Well, send a patch - or just disable the offending module in
> your code.
>
> Tomcat out-of-box is feature full and more intended for developers
> ( who greatly outnumber the 'production sites'). If you read
> the 5.0 proposal, it allows ( or includes ) the ability to
> release customized tomcats.
>
> Of course, nobody stops Pier on working on whatever he wants -
> a -1 means he can't do it in the main branch and he can't use
> the name 'tomcat', but the proposal/ area has allwasy been open.
> If he can get a 'higher availability' than we'll get with 5.0 -
> great, we'll all be happy.
>
> But now Pier treatens he'll just leave us oprhapns ( without
> a father). I certainly hope he's not serious with that, and if he
> does - I hope he'll return. And in the meantime he may try to
> learn to be a bit more polite and modest - and control his
> frustrations.
>
> </rant>
>
> Costin
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)
Posted by John Trollinger <ja...@trollingers.com>.
Although Pier is sometimes harsh with his words he does have some valid
points. I would be nice for tomcat to be somewhat modular so if all you
want is a servlet engine just get those components. This also goes with
moving the CVS repositories.. so you can get only the modules you want
and build the parts of tomcat that you need with out all the overhead.
-----Original Message-----
From: costinm@covalent.net [mailto:costinm@covalent.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 1:07 PM
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
> >> Pier could you detail what should be a Tomcat HA, and how
> >> it could fit in TC 5.0 proposal ?
> >
> >As far as I can remember it was voted -1...
>
> What about TC 5.0 with HA capability ?
TC5.0 will have a 'higher availability' then 4.1 which is better
than 4.0. Same goes for 3.3 versus 3.2, and so on.
<rant -stop reading if you're not interested in flames -->
I am trying as hard as possible to remain calm and on the
subject when discussing with 'angry' Pier - but the FUD he
is using is unbelievable.
He can't use tomcat4.0 in production ? Maybe he's trying to
do that with mod_webapp ( with no load balancing AFAIK, and
'auto configuration' ). And he complains about features -
well, Apache is full of features, and most people know how
to not enable the modules that they don't need on a production
site.
Now he proposes a "HA tomcat" - as if all our efforts in
so far has been in adding useless features and nobody else
cares about HA. Well, if you would pay attention a lot of
work is beeing put in improving the lb ( an essential factor
for HA ), in adding management ( guess what - JMX is not only
for configuration, but also for getting runtime info and notifications
),
and in improving the low-level objects to beter deal with the load
( that's coyote ) plus for 5.0 a simpler core that would allow
more modularity ( coyote again ).
And the solution he proposes: removing 'useless' features like
jasper or JMX.
Well, I know quite a few people who managed to get tomcat in
production on a variety of sites ( including very large loads).
Even with tomcat3.2 - a generation behind the current 3.3 and 4.0.
They do that using load balancing and customizing the installation.
Unfortunately Pier's tomcat4.0 doesn't support load balancing,
and it seems he's having problems with the admin module of 4.1.
Well, send a patch - or just disable the offending module in
your code.
Tomcat out-of-box is feature full and more intended for developers
( who greatly outnumber the 'production sites'). If you read
the 5.0 proposal, it allows ( or includes ) the ability to
release customized tomcats.
Of course, nobody stops Pier on working on whatever he wants -
a -1 means he can't do it in the main branch and he can't use
the name 'tomcat', but the proposal/ area has allwasy been open.
If he can get a 'higher availability' than we'll get with 5.0 -
great, we'll all be happy.
But now Pier treatens he'll just leave us oprhapns ( without
a father). I certainly hope he's not serious with that, and if he
does - I hope he'll return. And in the meantime he may try to
learn to be a bit more polite and modest - and control his
frustrations.
</rant>
Costin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>