What's the deployment container of choice?

[Tim Perrett]

Im just plodding along developing with /lift/ and got to thinking -
whats the ideal way to deploy an application written on /lift/ ?

Glassfish? Tomcat? Jetty? JBoss?

Would be interested to see what other people out there are doing :)

Cheers

Tim

[Ivan Tarasov]

I'm deploying /lift/ on GlassFish and it works fine there.

Ivan

[Tim Perrett]

Hey Ivan, whats the memory footprint of glassfish in deployment? Ive
read lots about it but never used it in anger...

[Ivan Tarasov]

Hmm, I'm not quite sure what you're asking about: do you mean the amount of heap that GF without an application deployed inside of it uses? I can create an empty domain if you are very interested in that metrics, although it doesn't seem too important to me. A domain that I have on my laptop, which contains several small lift apps, uses about 70-80Mb of heap memory after domain startup (according to JConsole), but I don't really care a lot about that (I don't even have a feel of whether it is a lot or not).

I have a GF server running a relatively small application, which gets served to several thousands of users, and I can get some stats on it if you really want. However, the application leaks a lot of memory, so its hard to make a meaningful number out of the memory stats.

There are some problems with GF (notably, slow web administration console), but I'm working with the GF development team on fixing them.

Ivan

[Derek Chen-Becker]

Running on JBoss 4.2.1 here without problems. Had some issues a while back because lift was trying to configure log4j, but a code fix went in that resolved it.

Derek

[David Bernard]

http://demo.liftweb.net/ are running under jetty

/davidB

[Tim Perrett]

Thats interesting - Ideally Id like to keep a lean memory footprint
and it strikes me that jetty would be the lightest of all the various
options? Is that a fair assumption? Excuse my ignorance; I've never
done a deployment to production on Jetty so know very little about
it... :)

Cheers!

Tim

On Mar 27, 9:44 pm, David Bernard <david.bernard...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://demo.liftweb.net/are running under jetty

[Viktor Klang]

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Tim Perrett <goo...@timperrett.com> wrote:

Thats interesting - Ideally Id like to keep a lean memory footprint
and it strikes me that jetty would be the lightest of all the various
options? Is that a fair assumption? Excuse my ignorance; I've never
done a deployment to production on Jetty so know very little about
it... :)

I've been testing both under Tomcat and under Jetty.

Cheers,
-V
 

Cheers!

Tim

On Mar 27, 9:44 pm, David Bernard <david.bernard...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://demo.liftweb.net/are running under jetty

--
Viktor Klang
Rogue Software Architect

[TylerWeir]

Same as Vik, Tomcat and Jetty.

> > >http://demo.liftweb.net/arerunning under jetty

[David Pollak]

I use Jetty in development and like it a lot.

I primarily use Tomcat in production because:

1 - it's got AJP13 and JNDI built in

2 - it's easier to have many contexts

3 - it's got a more straight forward way to have multiple JNDI data sources

The relative memory footprint of one versus the other is trivial and both will do just fine with 128MB of heap space.

The things I don't like about Tomcat:

1 - UTF-8 is not its default form decoding format (WTF?)

2 - I don't like Tomcat continuations very much

Thanks,

David

--
Scala lift off unconference, May 10th 2008, San Francisco http://scalaliftoff.com
lift, the secure, simple, powerful web framework http://liftweb.net
Collaborative Task Management http://much4.us

[Steve Jenson]

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 5:43 AM, David Pollak
<feeder.of...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The things I don't like about Tomcat:
> 1 - UTF-8 is not its default form decoding format (WTF?)

This is most likely because the default encoding for HTTP is US-ASCII.

In the past, I've found the best way of making sure your forms are
handled as UTF-8 is to encode it into the document's meta headers.

<meta http-equiv="Content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
for whatever your Content-Type is.

Steve