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 mean heavy with the size of the jars, but looks like I spoke too
quickly since jetty is relativly small ( 2 mb ) according to
your statements below.

>
>> 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.

That would be better for sure cos XML/XSLT hell took me much time
to modify the console to my own needs compared to a generic JSP and co
solution.
Finally this solution is kind of limited ( in a programatic point of views
) due to XSLT.

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

Yeah for sure and I hope that jetty( or other..) handles correctly
SSL/TLS API for IBM JDK's :o)

> 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.

Lucky man :o)

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

Sharing thoughts helps to make better tools.

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Mx4j-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mx4j-devel
>



-------------------------------------------------------
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