RE: Last bugs coordination and finally 2.0 !

Hi,

> Hi,
> 
> I'm using your http adaptor and I like it cos it's 
> lightweight and not too hard to modify.

Hmm, modifying a web app also isn't that difficult.

> Having it backed by a standard J2EE web container like jetty 
> or tomcat is cool for sure ( more standard, easier to modify 
> ) but it will become really heavy.

What do you mean by "heavy" ?

> I don't see myself ship a tool using your http console with a 
> 10mb+ web container just to have this functionality.

mx4j.jar is ~400 KB
mx4j-remote is ~160 KB
jetty is ~600 KB
jetty with JSP is ~1.5 MB (needs jasper)

I think that should be possible to ship a console that uses Jetty for the socket/HttpRequest/Response stuff.
If JSP are not used (only Servlet for example) the whole stuff should be quite small and limited to few (one) jars.

In this configuration, it is possible to start Jetty and let it point to a standard .war file that contains a web application that shows a console. This web app has very little dependencies
1. JSR 160
2. A JMXConnector present in the ServletContext.

We can write a simple web app, based on XML/XSLT work done by Carlos and others.

And one can build a web app with Webwork and JSP/Velocity in few hours from scratch, tailored for its needs.

Both will benefit of the full power of web apps: security, servlet, filters, https, and so on.
I think this is valuable.

Personally I use JMX on server side; I often need to build a GUI that is tailored to the application, not a generic JMX gui. So I don't have any problem of "heavyness" since I'm most of the time on 4-CPU boxes.

This is my view, and I'm glad to hear other opinions, especially on the heavyness.

Simon


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id56&alloc_id438&op=click