You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tomcat.apache.org by Howard Jim <Ho...@JohnDeere.com> on 2003/12/18 15:47:30 UTC

Quick questions about Connector connectionTimeout

My current config looks like this: 

   <Connector className="org.apache.coyote.tomcat4.CoyoteConnector"
               port="8011" minProcessors="5" maxProcessors="150"
               enableLookups="false" redirectPort="443"
               acceptCount="10" debug="0" connectionTimeout="-1"
               useURIValidationHack="false"
               protocolHandlerClassName="org.apache.jk.server.JkCoyoteHandler"/>


I understand that the connection timeout is disabled with this setting.  I searched through the docs, etc, but all I ever found was "set the connection timeout in milliseconds".  

My questions are, where would this matter?  Why would I want to enable a timeout here?  If this is disabled, and connections are timed out elsewhere (session, etc) shouldn't the processor still terminate normally?

I am assuming it is a safegaurd to prevent a run-away situation, but would like some more input.

Thanks much,

Jim


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org


Re: EJB Compliance

Posted by Kwok Peng Tuck <pe...@makmal.net>.
Tony Colson wrote:

>This might be a re-post...sorry if it is...
>
>
>Is Tomcat 4.1 (or even 5.0) EJB Compliant?  If so, is it compliant with
>the EJB 1.1 or 2.0 specification?
>
>  
>
No it is not EJB Compliant.  There's no need for it to be.


>I can't seem to find appropriate documentation.  Also, in the Tomcat
>docs under the <Context> element, it doesn't even mention the <Ejb>
>element, but, of course, it is provided in the sample server.xml file.
>
>  
>
It isn't there because it only implements the servlet/jsp specification.
If you happen to want a ejb capable app server, JBoss might be a good 
idea. There are others like Jonas, enhydra
that do the same thing.


>Thanks
>Tony
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
>  
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org


RE: EJB Compliance

Posted by Jerry Birchler <jr...@comcast.net>.
Tomcat does not implement EJB. JBOSS implements EJB on top of tomcat
(currently, version 4.1.29). Check it out here:

http://www.jboss.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Colson [mailto:colson@prettyhealth.biz]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 9:57 PM
To: 'Tomcat Users List'
Subject: EJB Compliance



This might be a re-post...sorry if it is...


Is Tomcat 4.1 (or even 5.0) EJB Compliant?  If so, is it compliant with
the EJB 1.1 or 2.0 specification?

I can't seem to find appropriate documentation.  Also, in the Tomcat
docs under the <Context> element, it doesn't even mention the <Ejb>
element, but, of course, it is provided in the sample server.xml file.

Thanks
Tony


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org


EJB Compliance

Posted by Tony Colson <co...@prettyhealth.biz>.
This might be a re-post...sorry if it is...


Is Tomcat 4.1 (or even 5.0) EJB Compliant?  If so, is it compliant with
the EJB 1.1 or 2.0 specification?

I can't seem to find appropriate documentation.  Also, in the Tomcat
docs under the <Context> element, it doesn't even mention the <Ejb>
element, but, of course, it is provided in the sample server.xml file.

Thanks
Tony


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org


Re: Quick questions about Connector connectionTimeout

Posted by Bill Barker <wb...@wilshire.com>.
The reason to have the connectionTimeout is to free up the thread to process
other requests, instead of blocking to see if the client is going to request
anything else.  The default value is reasonable to serve up the page +
images etc. in one TCP connection. If you have a very high-traffic site,
then you usually want to disable keep-alive altogether (so the timeout value
(almost) doesn't matter, since Tomcat will serve one request only on the
thread).  For a low-traffic site, it doesn't usually matter what you do :).

Also, this has nothing to do with the session timeout.  It is possible that
if you leave your browser open when you go to lunch, that the  session will
timeout but the request thread will still be sitting there waiting for the
browser to ask for something else.

"Howard Jim" <Ho...@JohnDeere.com> wrote in message
news:B08D81EB48537041B48F74D8202CFE7C02C51398@edxmb2.jdnet.deere.com...
My current config looks like this:

   <Connector className="org.apache.coyote.tomcat4.CoyoteConnector"
               port="8011" minProcessors="5" maxProcessors="150"
               enableLookups="false" redirectPort="443"
               acceptCount="10" debug="0" connectionTimeout="-1"
               useURIValidationHack="false"

protocolHandlerClassName="org.apache.jk.server.JkCoyoteHandler"/>


I understand that the connection timeout is disabled with this setting.  I
searched through the docs, etc, but all I ever found was "set the connection
timeout in milliseconds".

My questions are, where would this matter?  Why would I want to enable a
timeout here?  If this is disabled, and connections are timed out elsewhere
(session, etc) shouldn't the processor still terminate normally?

I am assuming it is a safegaurd to prevent a run-away situation, but would
like some more input.

Thanks much,

Jim




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org