[wsas-java-dev] positioning of wsas "embeddable" version

[saminda abeyruwan]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi All,

The current release of embedded Tomcat is "apache-tomcat-5.5.20", and
the zip distribution is approximately 3.1 MB, where all Jetty related
jars sum up to approximately 1 MB.

With preliminary testings, we've started WSAS on Embedded Tomcat (JDK
1.5  {Need compatibility kit for JDK 1.4}), and the initial starting
time of WSAS is approximately 9-11 Sec, when its come to Jetty is around
approximately 18-20 Sec. Thus, we have a boost in startup time and the
distro will gain in size.

Even it preliminary setup, Embedded Tomcat has shown improvements in
performance (intuitive) than Jetty.

With props and cons, +1 to Embedded Tomcat distribution of WSAS
standalone edition.

Thank you

Saminda

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> Definitely +1 for embeddable Tomcat. Will there be a majorly noticeable
> change in the size of the distro?
> 
> WS Container sounds like a good name for the servlet edition .. but I
> agree with not changing the name again. Also, servlet edition is
> accurate- it runs as a servlet! We can later do a say a JCA edition ..
> which would run as a JCA connector (Paul had some ideas on how to do
> this and IIRC did a proto too). (No hurry for this AFAIK but maybe
> something to give like an intern to play with to build up. Paul?)
> 
> MOST DEFINITELY +1 for making WSAS standalone edition top of the line!
> There's no reason whatsoever why we can't become that next runtime
> people run in their infra without question.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> Afkham Azeez wrote:
>> Please Note: Embeddable version is now called WSO2 WSAS Servlet Edition.
>>
>> I also was discussing the possibility of replacing Jetty(We do not use
>> commons HTTP) with embeddable  Tomcat. We observed that WSAS runs faster
>> on Tomcat than with Jetty. Shall we switch to embeddable Tomcat and
>> scrap the Jetty integration code? I'm sure Amila & Sandakith will jump
>> in and help us :)
>>
>> +1 for placing more emphasis, in terms of marketing/PR, on the
>> servlet-edition. An App Server which runs within an App Server sounds a
>> bit weird. May be we can call the servlet-edition "WSO2 Web Services
>> Container". We need to test it on more J2EE App servers such as
>> Webshere/Weblogic, and improve the installer to include these servers.
>>
>> IMHO, we should also develop the standalone edition to be a industry
>> grade server. If JBoss/Tomcat can do it, certainly can we. Some people
>> may want a lightweight container to simply host Web services.
>>
>> One other thing, it may not be too good to change the name of the
>> product too frequently.
>>
>> -- Azeez
>>
>>
>> Ajith Ranabahu wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> My perspective is that the embeddable version would be the more
>>> appealing version for the enterprise customer (and even for the average
>>> developer. I'm sure most of the developers have tomcat or similar
>>> servlet container running in their machines. Judging by the mailing
>>> lists for Axis2 - which I believe is equally applicable to WSAS - we can
>>> definitely say the major interest is in the embeddable version. FYI some
>>> guys here didn't have a clue that Axis2/WSAS ships with a default
>>> server!)
>>>
>>> I would say the standalone version (at the current state) would be
>>> appealing to a developer just to have a feeling about or perhaps
>>> develop/debug on it for a while. But actual deployment is more likely to
>>> happen on an industry grade server, at least tomcat.
>>>
>>> As a suggestion while putting the embeddable version in the front, would
>>> it be worth to have a more robust standalone version based on tomcat ?
>>> I'm sure tomcat can be stripped down to a bare minimum and WSAS attached
>>> to it without much effort [We do have tomcat experts around. Both Amila
>>> and Sandakith do know all the ins and outs of tomcat :)]. This can be
>>> shipped as a complete server package (of course with the modules
>>> preconfigured) to any of the interested parties who want to start from
>>> scratch. We can even admit that we are using the 'proven tomcat
>>> platform', which certainly will be better received than commons HTTP  :)
>>>
>>> Ajith
>>>
>>> Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>
>>>> I've been wondering lately whether we're over-positioning the
>>>> standalone
>>>> version compared to the version that runs on top of
>>>> JBoss/WL/WAS/Geronimo etc..
>>>>
>>>> The reason is that the standalone version is a disruptive story. That
>>>> is, customers have to put up our *server* as a key part of their
>>>> mission
>>>> critical infrastructure. That's a harder sell than say putting up a bit
>>>> of code in their already running server platform.
>>>>
>>>> A HUGE advantage we have over the WS stacks of any *one* of
>>>> JBoss/WL/WAS/etc. is that ours runs on all of them. Many customers have
>>>> more than one of these app servers in production and having a single
>>>> high performant WS-* stack that works the same on all of them would be
>>>> quite valuable as they don't have to muck around with app-server
>>>> specific details. This is especially awesome once we start performing
>>>> better than JBoss-WS on JBoss etc..
>>>>
>>>> What do you think? We need to work on adjusting the PR and messaging if
>>>> we're to make the "embeddable" version more appealing ... starting with
>>>> coming up with a better name for it.
>>>>
>>>> Sanjiva.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wsas-java-dev mailing list
>>> Wsas-java-dev at wso2.org
>>> http://wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wsas-java-dev
>>>
>>
>>
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFzA3gYmklbLuW6wYRAkmiAKCT33PlQTizPokObDyhzikQocaUwQCgv2C0
KI7BH4LeNdvRDFrAK+hYW7o=
=d9cY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----