The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll publish as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work on for 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time and a friendlier output directory structure (something that looks more .war-like).
As part of this effort, we've all but decided to switch the hosted mode embedded HTTP server from Tomcat to Jetty. Would this break you? (And if so, how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We figure most people who really care about the web.xml and so on are already using "-noserver" to have full control over their server config.
> The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll > publish as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to > work on for 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time and > a friendlier output directory structure (something that looks more > .war-like).
> As part of this effort, we've all but decided to switch the hosted > mode embedded HTTP server from Tomcat to Jetty. Would this break you? > (And if so, how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We figure most > people who really care about the web.xml and so on are already using > "-noserver" to have full control over their server config.
Don't think it would break me and I'm all for more speed in starting
up hosted mode. Additional features you'd care to share? I'd be
thrilled if the "use a real browser in hosted mode" idea bubbled back
up....FWIW.
Later,
Shaffer
On Oct 13, 4:48 pm, "Bruce Johnson" <br...@google.com> wrote:
> The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll publish
> as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work on for
> 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time and a friendlier
> output directory structure (something that looks more .war-like).
> As part of this effort, we've all but decided to switch the hosted mode
> embedded HTTP server from Tomcat to Jetty. Would this break you? (And if so,
> how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We figure most people who really
> care about the web.xml and so on are already using "-noserver" to have full
> control over their server config.
> As part of this effort, we've all but decided to switch the hosted mode > embedded HTTP server from Tomcat to Jetty. Would this break you? (And if so, > how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We figure most people who really > care about the web.xml and so on are already using "-noserver" to have full > control over their server config.
I personally would welcome Jetty. I'm using it as part of Grails right now. It's fast and easy going.
In their latest drop (6.1.12.rc2 and rc3) there is a new feature in
maven-jetty-plugin to reload jetty on keyboard events in console
rather than automatically - it's indispensable when java GWT code
lives in the same source tree as the server side java code (just in
different package). And generally, maven jetty plugin is way better
than Cargo stuff that's used for Tomcat.
Also, Jetty Continuations are just some much easier to work with than
Tomcat's Comet. No wonder they are including it into Servlet spec 3.0.
Nothing particularly wrong with Tomcat but I think it's just lagging
in terms of developer productivity features behind Jetty.
On Oct 13, 9:42 pm, "Michael Vogt" <mich...@michaelvogt.eu> wrote:
> > As part of this effort, we've all but decided to switch the hosted mode
> > embedded HTTP server from Tomcat to Jetty. Would this break you? (And if so,
> > how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We figure most people who really
> > care about the web.xml and so on are already using "-noserver" to have full
> > control over their server config.
> I personally would welcome Jetty. I'm using it as part of Grails right
> now. It's fast and easy going.
I personally use Tomcat a lot more, mainly because it started as the reference implementation (though I know it no longer technically holds that position). The few times I've wanted to use Jetty I've had to switch back to Tomcat due to lack of system admin knowledge (ie: the various admins I was working with didn't know it).
That all said, I almost never use Hosted Mode, and system admins don't have to deal with a development time engine. Tomcat does have much better IDE support than Jetty, but since Hosted Mode is in charge of that, again it makes no real difference. When I do run Hosted Mode it's with the -noserver option.
So my end opinion: I think the change is a good idea, since the additional speed and lower memory load will encourage people trying out GWT for the first time.
> In their latest drop (6.1.12.rc2 and rc3) there is a new feature in > maven-jetty-plugin to reload jetty on keyboard events in console > rather than automatically - it's indispensable when java GWT code > lives in the same source tree as the server side java code (just in > different package). And generally, maven jetty plugin is way better > than Cargo stuff that's used for Tomcat.
> Also, Jetty Continuations are just some much easier to work with than > Tomcat's Comet. No wonder they are including it into Servlet spec 3.0.
> Nothing particularly wrong with Tomcat but I think it's just lagging > in terms of developer productivity features behind Jetty.
> On Oct 13, 9:42 pm, "Michael Vogt" <mich...@michaelvogt.eu> wrote: >> Hi Bruce.
>>> As part of this effort, we've all but decided to switch the hosted mode >>> embedded HTTP server from Tomcat to Jetty. Would this break you? (And if so, >>> how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We figure most people who really >>> care about the web.xml and so on are already using "-noserver" to have full >>> control over their server config. >> I personally would welcome Jetty. I'm using it as part of Grails right >> now. It's fast and easy going.
I use Tomcat for all our customer deployments and as a server to host the development. If Tomcat is used as the server for development, there are probably less chances that something would not work when deployed. I am not sure of how popular is Jetty for real deployments compared to Tomcat, but I have the feeling that Tomcat is ahead of Jetty. The startup time in development mode is not really important for me, considering that there are not that many cases where the server needs to be restarted. We don't use any specific feature to a particular server, so Comet or continuations are not in the balance. A few weeks ago I deployed successfully a GWT app on Tomcat on a Windows server in about 30 mins. It still took me about 1 day to do the same on Ubuntu, not because of GWT, but because of the way Tomcat is configured by default on Ubuntu. Since it was the same server from beginning to end, I had less to investigate. If it was another server engine, I would have doubts on many more configuration issues.
I am looking at the Widgets and the incubator and I wish a lot more work was done there. Lots of customers and developers have "ext" on their lips, I'd like to see more development in that area. The ScrollTable is hardly usable at the moment. And some comments have been there with no response http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/ScrollTable
Hi, this is pretty nice widget. For those who is puzzled by the demo not working in Firefox. I would suggest you to download the latest source code and run it locally. The ScrollTable<http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/ScrollTable>works nicely in both Firefox/Chrome & IE.
Please can someone update the docs and example. This is a brilliant widget but in this state its almost unusable :(
========================================== The more I use GWT and the more I love it, I think it's a brilliant idea and implementation (I still have to find a bug in it!), but my priorities are not in the server startup time.
In summary the current use of Tomcat is pretty good, why change and spend time and $$$ instead of spending time on other nice features? "If it ain't broken, why fix it?"
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 14:53, Jason Morris <lem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I personally use Tomcat a lot more, mainly because it started as the > reference > implementation (though I know it no longer technically holds that > position). The > few times I've wanted to use Jetty I've had to switch back to Tomcat due to > lack > of system admin knowledge (ie: the various admins I was working with didn't > know > it).
> That all said, I almost never use Hosted Mode, and system admins don't have > to > deal with a development time engine. Tomcat does have much better IDE > support > than Jetty, but since Hosted Mode is in charge of that, again it makes no > real > difference. When I do run Hosted Mode it's with the -noserver option.
> So my end opinion: I think the change is a good idea, since the additional > speed > and lower memory load will encourage people trying out GWT for the first > time.
> Tim wrote: > > jetty is awesome.
> > In their latest drop (6.1.12.rc2 and rc3) there is a new feature in > > maven-jetty-plugin to reload jetty on keyboard events in console > > rather than automatically - it's indispensable when java GWT code > > lives in the same source tree as the server side java code (just in > > different package). And generally, maven jetty plugin is way better > > than Cargo stuff that's used for Tomcat.
> > Also, Jetty Continuations are just some much easier to work with than > > Tomcat's Comet. No wonder they are including it into Servlet spec 3.0.
> > Nothing particularly wrong with Tomcat but I think it's just lagging > > in terms of developer productivity features behind Jetty.
> > On Oct 13, 9:42 pm, "Michael Vogt" <mich...@michaelvogt.eu> wrote: > >> Hi Bruce.
> >>> As part of this effort, we've all but decided to switch the hosted mode > >>> embedded HTTP server from Tomcat to Jetty. Would this break you? (And > if so, > >>> how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We figure most people who > really > >>> care about the web.xml and so on are already using "-noserver" to have > full > >>> control over their server config. > >> I personally would welcome Jetty. I'm using it as part of Grails right > >> now. It's fast and easy going.
I think it is broken in the sense that it does take a lot of time to
get the app running when in development mode (and hosted mode), or at
least more time that I would like it to.
I would welcome Jetty if that improves the performance. I have nothing
specific to tomcat so far, so nothing should be broken. I actually use
Jetty to deploy and test the application quickly in web mode.
On Oct 14, 3:44 am, "Fred Janon" <fja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I use Tomcat for all our customer deployments and as a server to host the
> development. If Tomcat is used as the server for development, there are
> probably less chances that something would not work when deployed. I am not
> sure of how popular is Jetty for real deployments compared to Tomcat, but I
> have the feeling that Tomcat is ahead of Jetty. The startup time in
> development mode is not really important for me, considering that there are
> not that many cases where the server needs to be restarted. We don't use any
> specific feature to a particular server, so Comet or continuations are not
> in the balance. A few weeks ago I deployed successfully a GWT app on Tomcat
> on a Windows server in about 30 mins. It still took me about 1 day to do the
> same on Ubuntu, not because of GWT, but because of the way Tomcat is
> configured by default on Ubuntu. Since it was the same server from beginning
> to end, I had less to investigate. If it was another server engine, I would
> have doubts on many more configuration issues.
> I am looking at the Widgets and the incubator and I wish a lot more work was
> done there. Lots of customers and developers have "ext" on their lips, I'd
> like to see more development in that area. The ScrollTable is hardly usable
> at the moment. And some comments have been there with no responsehttp://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/ScrollTable
> Hi, this is pretty nice widget. For those who is puzzled by the demo not
> working in Firefox. I would suggest you to download the latest source code
> and run it locally. The
> ScrollTable<http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/ScrollTable>works
> nicely in both Firefox/Chrome & IE.
> One question though, will column drag and drop be supported in the future?
> Comment by Stephen....@paretopartners.com<http://code.google.com/u/@VRFTQFdRDxdFWAJ1/>,
> Oct 07 (6 days ago)
> Please can someone update the docs and example. This is a brilliant widget
> but in this state its almost unusable :(
> ==========================================
> The more I use GWT and the more I love it, I think it's a brilliant idea
> and implementation (I still have to find a bug in it!), but my priorities
> are not in the server startup time.
> In summary the current use of Tomcat is pretty good, why change and spend
> time and $$$ instead of spending time on other nice features? "If it ain't
> broken, why fix it?"
> But if you are already all decided then...
> Fred
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 14:53, Jason Morris <lem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I personally use Tomcat a lot more, mainly because it started as the
> > reference
> > implementation (though I know it no longer technically holds that
> > position). The
> > few times I've wanted to use Jetty I've had to switch back to Tomcat due to
> > lack
> > of system admin knowledge (ie: the various admins I was working with didn't
> > know
> > it).
> > That all said, I almost never use Hosted Mode, and system admins don't have
> > to
> > deal with a development time engine. Tomcat does have much better IDE
> > support
> > than Jetty, but since Hosted Mode is in charge of that, again it makes no
> > real
> > difference. When I do run Hosted Mode it's with the -noserver option.
> > So my end opinion: I think the change is a good idea, since the additional
> > speed
> > and lower memory load will encourage people trying out GWT for the first
> > time.
> > Tim wrote:
> > > jetty is awesome.
> > > In their latest drop (6.1.12.rc2 and rc3) there is a new feature in
> > > maven-jetty-plugin to reload jetty on keyboard events in console
> > > rather than automatically - it's indispensable when java GWT code
> > > lives in the same source tree as the server side java code (just in
> > > different package). And generally, maven jetty plugin is way better
> > > than Cargo stuff that's used for Tomcat.
> > > Also, Jetty Continuations are just some much easier to work with than
> > > Tomcat's Comet. No wonder they are including it into Servlet spec 3.0.
> > > Nothing particularly wrong with Tomcat but I think it's just lagging
> > > in terms of developer productivity features behind Jetty.
> > > On Oct 13, 9:42 pm, "Michael Vogt" <mich...@michaelvogt.eu> wrote:
> > >> Hi Bruce.
> > >>> As part of this effort, we've all but decided to switch the hosted mode
> > >>> embedded HTTP server from Tomcat to Jetty. Would this break you? (And
> > if so,
> > >>> how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We figure most people who
> > really
> > >>> care about the web.xml and so on are already using "-noserver" to have
> > full
> > >>> control over their server config.
> > >> I personally would welcome Jetty. I'm using it as part of Grails right
> > >> now. It's fast and easy going.
We run Tomcat in production and on our desktops. I prefer to test with
the same system. Having said that, I appreciate the value of Jetty.
So, why can't we have both? Make it a config option.
> The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll publish
> as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work on for
> 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time and a friendlier
> output directory structure (something that looks more .war-like).
> As part of this effort, we've all but decided to switch the hosted mode
> embedded HTTP server from Tomcat to Jetty. Would this break you? (And if so,
> how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We figure most people who really
> care about the web.xml and so on are already using "-noserver" to have full
> control over their server config.
Since creating a usable server side configuration in the embedded servlet container is all but impossible for anything but the simplest projects, I think that the choice of embedded server is a non-issue.
Since complicated configurations aren't really something you want to address in the embedded server, my vote would be for the simplest, fastest implementation that supports the simple case uses.
So, if Jetty starts faster and is lighter weight, then great, use it.
> The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll > publish as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want > to work on for 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time > and a friendlier output directory structure (something that looks > more .war-like).
> As part of this effort, we've all but decided to switch the hosted > mode embedded HTTP server from Tomcat to Jetty. Would this break > you? (And if so, how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We > figure most people who really care about the web.xml and so on are > already using "-noserver" to have full control over their server > config.
My project requires a full blown JEE container, not just a servlet engine, so neither tomcat nor jetty would be enough. I have been using -noserver since the beginning and it works great.
If the embedded server doesn't fit your needs (no matter what that server ends up being) then it is no big deal to use whatever server does work for you.
> We run Tomcat in production and on our desktops. I prefer to test with > the same system. Having said that, I appreciate the value of Jetty. > So, why can't we have both? Make it a config option.
> Since creating a usable server side configuration in the embedded
> servlet container is all but impossible for anything but the simplest
> projects, I think that the choice of embedded server is a non-issue.
> Since complicated configurations aren't really something you want to
> address in the embedded server, my vote would be for the simplest,
> fastest implementation that supports the simple case uses.
> So, if Jetty starts faster and is lighter weight, then great, use it.
> -jason
> On Oct 13, 2008, at 4:48 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> > Hope you're enjoying 1.5.
> > The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll
> > publish as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want
> > to work on for 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time
> > and a friendlier output directory structure (something that looks
> > more .war-like).
> > As part of this effort, we've all but decided to switch the hosted
> > mode embedded HTTP server from Tomcat to Jetty. Would this break
> > you? (And if so, how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We
> > figure most people who really care about the web.xml and so on are
> > already using "-noserver" to have full control over their server
> > config.
I do extensive get development in Netbeans for GWT and very happy with
the current setup minus increasing the maxmemory variable every time I
restart Netbeans so I don't run out of memory when building the
application. If I debug the project, I run in the GWT browser and can
do incremental debug updates on code without restarting as long as
method signatures don't change so I rarely have issues with startup
time when debugging code. When I want to test in browser I simply run
the project and it launches in my default browser fairly quickly. To
do a clean build takes about 1 minute 20 seconds on a fairly fast box.
Changing one file and selecting debug which will build and launch
takes 1 minute 30 seconds where startup of gwt browser takes about 10
seconds. I would like to see faster incremental build times when
changing only one file. I work around this by debugging/fixing bugs
and doing incremental updates on the current debug session and test
the new code. This way I don't repeat all the application steps to get
to the same debug state to test the code changes. Netbeans does the
update and recalls the method with the same values prior to the
incremental update.
The main point is I have a very productive and working environment
where I have a war file automatically built by netbeans and couldn't
think of any way to make it easier and I do nothing to mess with the
xml for building and deploying. No problems with you making changes
but hopefully it doesn't break what already works well in netbeans. It
would be nice if incremental builds was faster.
Thanks
Scooter Willis
On Oct 15, 7:49 am, walden <wmath...@aladdincapital.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 6:03 pm, Jason Essington <jason.essing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Since creating a usable server side configuration in the embedded
> > servlet container is all but impossible for anything but the simplest
> > projects, I think that the choice of embedded server is a non-issue.
> > Since complicated configurations aren't really something you want to
> > address in the embedded server, my vote would be for the simplest,
> > fastest implementation that supports the simple case uses.
> > So, if Jetty starts faster and is lighter weight, then great, use it.
> > -jason
> > On Oct 13, 2008, at 4:48 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote:
> > > Hi everyone,
> > > Hope you're enjoying 1.5.
> > > The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll
> > > publish as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want
> > > to work on for 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time
> > > and a friendlier output directory structure (something that looks
> > > more .war-like).
> > > As part of this effort, we've all but decided to switch the hosted
> > > mode embedded HTTP server from Tomcat to Jetty. Would this break
> > > you? (And if so, how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We
> > > figure most people who really care about the web.xml and so on are
> > > already using "-noserver" to have full control over their server
> > > config.
If it's faster, go for it, don't see how it can break hosted mode.
If a substantial amount of the hosted start-up time is actually the
server, one alternative might be to have a built-in way to start up
the server portion separately, and let it stay running while iterating
client code. I find the server code to generally be more amenable to
hot-swapping, while changes in client code often require a restart, so
if it didn't have to restart the server each time that would be a big
bonus. Of course I can currently set stuff up run the server
separately on my own, but having the ability built-in seems more along
the GWT philosophy of easy entry.
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Bruce Johnson <br...@google.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > Hope you're enjoying 1.5.
> The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll > publish as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work > on for 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time and a > friendlier output directory structure (something that looks more > .war-like).
> As part of this effort, we've all but decided to switch the hosted mode > embedded HTTP server from Tomcat to Jetty. Would this break you? (And if so, > how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We figure most people who really > care about the web.xml and so on are already using "-noserver" to have full > control over their server config.
The most annoying issue with GWT is performance in development mode. I mean, compiling, startng hosted mode and running GWT Unit tests. So any action that improves these is welcome.
So my vote if for jetty
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:44 AM, Arthur Kalmenson <arthur.k...@gmail.com>wrote:
> If it makes hosted mode launch faster, go for it :)
> -- > Arthur Kalmenson
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Bruce Johnson <br...@google.com> wrote:
>> Hi everyone, >> Hope you're enjoying 1.5.
>> The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll >> publish as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work >> on for 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time and a >> friendlier output directory structure (something that looks more >> .war-like).
>> As part of this effort, we've all but decided to switch the hosted mode >> embedded HTTP server from Tomcat to Jetty. Would this break you? (And if so, >> how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We figure most people who really >> care about the web.xml and so on are already using "-noserver" to have full >> control over their server config.
> The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll publish
> as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work on for
> 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time and a friendlier
> output directory structure (something that looks more .war-like).
> As part of this effort, we've all but decided to switch the hosted mode
> embedded HTTP server from Tomcat to Jetty. Would this break you? (And if so,
> how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We figure most people who really
> care about the web.xml and so on are already using "-noserver" to have full
> control over their server config.
> The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll publish
> as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work on for
> 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time and a friendlier
> output directory structure (something that looks more .war-like).
> As part of this effort, we've all but decided to switch the hosted mode
> embedded HTTP server from Tomcat to Jetty. Would this break you? (And if so,
> how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We figure most people who really
> care about the web.xml and so on are already using "-noserver" to have full
> control over their server config.
> The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll publish
> as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work on for
> 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time and a friendlier
> output directory structure (something that looks more .war-like).
> As part of this effort, we've all but decided to switch the hosted mode
> embedded HTTP server from Tomcat to Jetty. Would this break you? (And if so,
> how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We figure most people who really
> care about the web.xml and so on are already using "-noserver" to have full
> control over their server config.
Opinion on this thread seems pretty much one way, but I currently know
little of Jetty.
1) Can anyone give a brief summary of why Jetty is "better" than
Tomcat?
2) Can I be reassured I won't run into unforeseen difficulties
deploying to JBoss?
regards
gregor
On Oct 20, 2:03 pm, Alex <alex.mof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Switching to jetty would be fine we me and my colleagues as well. We
> use -noserver for hosted mode and unit testing (with some hackery).
> On Oct 13, 5:48 pm, "Bruce Johnson" <br...@google.com> wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> > Hope you're enjoying 1.5.
> > The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll publish
> > as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work on for
> > 1.6 are some improvements to hosted mode startup time and a friendlier
> > output directory structure (something that looks more .war-like).
> > As part of this effort, we've all but decided to switch the hosted mode
> > embedded HTTP server from Tomcat to Jetty. Would this break you? (And if so,
> > how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We figure most people who really
> > care about the web.xml and so on are already using "-noserver" to have full
> > control over their server config.
The most annoying
issue with GWT is performance in development mode. I mean, compiling,
startng hosted mode and running GWT Unit tests. So any action that
improves these is welcome.
