Re: Request Opinions on a typical Java development environment (non-Windows)
From: Dale King (kingd[at]tmicha[dot]net)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:11:30 -0500
"Robert Klemme" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> "Dale King" <kingd[at]tmicha[dot]net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > "Robert Klemme" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> > news:c6il10$cbh7q$1@ID-52924.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "Dale King" <kingd[at]tmicha[dot]net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > news:firstname.lastname@example.org...
> > > > > I beg to differ: using Tomcat for static content is sufficient for
> > > many
> > > > > installations and it reduces deployment complexity significantly.
> > > use
> > > > > the tandem *only* if i) you are building a high traffic site, ii)
> > > there is
> > > > > a significant amount of static data (images, downloads...) and
> iii) it
> > > is
> > > > > crucial to get these across as fast as possible. Otherwise I'd
> > > with
> > > > > tomcat. It isn't really that slow for static content. IMHO the
> > > limiting
> > > > > factor is rather OS and disk instead of Tomcat's Java
> > > >
> > > > None of which disagrees with what I said. You can use just Tomcat
> > > that
> > > > is sufficient for some applications. I didn't say it was impossible
> > > use
> > > > just Tomcat but that it is not recommended. You will find many
> places on
> > > the
> > > > web saying that you should use Tomcat through Apache. I posted a
> link to
> > > one
> > > > site that explains why. Here is another:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > eb_Server_Connectors.shtml
> > >
> > > Do you have any information on how old this is?
> > Well here is the current information from the latest documentation for
> > Tomcat. I don't think it gets any more recent than that:
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat/faq/connectors.html#integrate
> > > There are issues that are
> > > simply not true (any more).
> > So what? There are still many issues that are still true. For example,
> in my
> > case I have subversion running with Apache. I'm not aware of a way to
> > that with just Tomcat. That is only one example.
> > > Tomcat is in fact able to do virtual hosting.
> > > And with a website with a lot of dynamics it doesn't really matter
> > > it's "only" the dynamic part that comes down or the complete thing.
> > > Tomcat does support CGI. And as I said, it's not necessarily slower
> > > static content.
> > Great! It is narrowing the gap, but there are still plenty of reasons to
> > choose the combination. The OP didn't even seem to know the difference
> > between Apache and Tomcat so is definitely not the type of person I
> > recommend to go with a Tomcat only install.
> So you're recommending the more complex scenario to someone who isn't even
> that proficient that he knows the difference...
The added complexity is minimal. Basic apache setup is pretty easy.
> If developing a Java based webapp I'd recommend to start with Tomcat alone
> (which is simpler to set up) and go for Apache only, if it is needed (be
> the reason speed, features or security).
If it was a webapp alone I'd probably recommend the same. If you start
talking about setting up an entire site with a broader scope the odds that
you will need Apache are fairl great.
> Well, I didn't say that there are not plenty of situations where you need
> both. I simply disagree to the statement that it's *generally*
> recommended to use both. It's totally dependend on the situation at hand.
> There are lots of situations where you can go with tomcat alone and lots
> of others where you need / want both.
Then we don't seem to be in any real disagreement. The only dispute is on
how likely it is that you will need Apache. You make it sound like it is
rare when you need it and I think typically you will need it.
-- Dale King Blog: http://daleking.homedns.org/Blog