WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

mark harwood
I've got a web-based version of Luke I'm happy to commit to contrib now.
This version includes some tidy up for developers working on Luke.
Eclipse .project and .classpath files have build path variables defined
to cater for different install locations for GWT in development
environments.

Full code is currently here:
http://www.inperspective.com/lucene/webluke.zip  (17 mb)
Unzip to "contrib" directory and run the usual ant build or import
project into Eclipse, set build path variables, clean project, and run
from there.

The only open question is if we should bundle Jetty in the Lucene binary
distribution as part of the build packaging. This could be used to
launch both WebLuke and the existing luceneweb.war but adds about 6 or 7
meg to the overall zipped download size.

Thoughts?




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

Karl Wettin

9 dec 2007 kl. 22.03 skrev markharw00d:

> Thoughts?

mvn jetty:run ?

maven jetty plugin, that is.
<http://jetty.mortbay.org/maven-plugin/run-mojo.html>


--
karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

Grant Ingersoll-2
In reply to this post by mark harwood
Looks good!  I especially like the visualizations and can see people  
adding more visualization capabilities as it gets used more.

I don't know that we have ever checked in IDE settings (Eclipse  
settings).  In fact, I think we have svn:ignore setup in most places  
for them.  Aren't they user specific at some point (I'm not an Eclipse  
user, so forgive my naivete)

As for bundling Jetty, I don't have a problem with it.  Might be nice  
if the demo just fired really easily like Solr's does just by saying  
jetty -jar start.jar.  In that case, then, maybe jetty should be  
packaged somewhere else outside of WebLuke?

Also, should this be in 2.3?  Or should we wait for the next release  
so that it has a little more dev. running time?

-Grant

On Dec 9, 2007, at 4:03 PM, markharw00d wrote:

> I've got a web-based version of Luke I'm happy to commit to contrib  
> now.
> This version includes some tidy up for developers working on Luke.  
> Eclipse .project and .classpath files have build path variables  
> defined to cater for different install locations for GWT in  
> development environments.
>
> Full code is currently here: http://www.inperspective.com/lucene/webluke.zip 
>   (17 mb)
> Unzip to "contrib" directory and run the usual ant build or import  
> project into Eclipse, set build path variables, clean project, and  
> run from there.
>
> The only open question is if we should bundle Jetty in the Lucene  
> binary distribution as part of the build packaging. This could be  
> used to launch both WebLuke and the existing luceneweb.war but adds  
> about 6 or 7 meg to the overall zipped download size.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

mark harwood
In reply to this post by mark harwood
>>I don't know that we have ever checked in IDE settings

GWT development is much easier with the IDE and there is a fair amount of manual setup required without the settings to run the "hosted" development environment. Hosted development is the key productivity benefit and allows debugging in Java (rather than building, deploying then having to debug Javascript). GWT provides Eclipse project generators to get started and they do not target other IDEs e.g. NetBeans because they claim those IDEs  typically do a good job of importing eclipse project settings (can't vouch for this myself, not having tried).  

>>Aren't they user specific at some point
No, I have taken care to ensure these IDE setting files have all directory names etc replaced with variables -  in the same way ANT build files use properties to avoid machine-specifics.

>> In that case, then, maybe jetty should be  packaged somewhere else outside of WebLuke?

Yes, I thought that. I tried putting the only other current webapp, "luceneweb.war" under Jetty but it failed to do anything of interest "out of the box" because it requires an index to be built first. We could extend that app to include web-based screens to create and populate an index but I suspect that rapidly puts us on a development path heading towards Solr or SearchBlox.

>>Also, should this be in 2.3?
Might be an idea to let it bed-down a little first. I'm not happy with the (lack of) security at present and wouldn't want naive users complaining of vulnerabilities introduced by its deployment.

Cheers
Mark



----- Original Message ----
From: Grant Ingersoll <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, 10 December, 2007 4:59:43 PM
Subject: Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

Looks good!  I especially like the visualizations and can see people  
adding more visualization capabilities as it gets used more.

I don't know that we have ever checked in IDE settings (Eclipse  
settings).  In fact, I think we have svn:ignore setup in most places  
for them.  Aren't they user specific at some point (I'm not an Eclipse
 
user, so forgive my naivete)

As for bundling Jetty, I don't have a problem with it.  Might be nice  
if the demo just fired really easily like Solr's does just by saying  
jetty -jar start.jar.  In that case, then, maybe jetty should be  
packaged somewhere else outside of WebLuke?

Also, should this be in 2.3?  Or should we wait for the next release  
so that it has a little more dev. running time?

-Grant

On Dec 9, 2007, at 4:03 PM, markharw00d wrote:

> I've got a web-based version of Luke I'm happy to commit to contrib  
> now.
> This version includes some tidy up for developers working on Luke.  
> Eclipse .project and .classpath files have build path variables  
> defined to cater for different install locations for GWT in  
> development environments.
>
> Full code is currently here:
 http://www.inperspective.com/lucene/webluke.zip 

>   (17 mb)
> Unzip to "contrib" directory and run the usual ant build or import  
> project into Eclipse, set build path variables, clean project, and  
> run from there.
>
> The only open question is if we should bundle Jetty in the Lucene  
> binary distribution as part of the build packaging. This could be  
> used to launch both WebLuke and the existing luceneweb.war but adds  
> about 6 or 7 meg to the overall zipped download size.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]






      __________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

Grant Ingersoll-2

On Dec 10, 2007, at 12:32 PM, mark harwood wrote:

>>> I don't know that we have ever checked in IDE settings
>
> GWT development is much easier with the IDE and there is a fair  
> amount of manual setup required without the settings to run the  
> "hosted" development environment. Hosted development is the key  
> productivity benefit and allows debugging in Java (rather than  
> building, deploying then having to debug Javascript). GWT provides  
> Eclipse project generators to get started and they do not target  
> other IDEs e.g. NetBeans because they claim those IDEs  typically do  
> a good job of importing eclipse project settings (can't vouch for  
> this myself, not having tried).
>
>>> Aren't they user specific at some point
> No, I have taken care to ensure these IDE setting files have all  
> directory names etc replaced with variables -  in the same way ANT  
> build files use properties to avoid machine-specifics.
>

Right, you have done this, but that doesn't guarantee that the next  
committer who comes along will necessarily be on top of it.  That  
being said, I don't care too much about it.  I use IntelliJ and it has  
GWT support in it (although I haven't actually used it)  Mostly, I  
just don't want to see some proliferation of IDE files in various  
places throughout the project.


>>> In that case, then, maybe jetty should be  packaged somewhere else  
>>> outside of WebLuke?
>
> Yes, I thought that. I tried putting the only other current webapp,  
> "luceneweb.war" under Jetty but it failed to do anything of interest  
> "out of the box" because it requires an index to be built first. We  
> could extend that app to include web-based screens to create and  
> populate an index but I suspect that rapidly puts us on a  
> development path heading towards Solr or SearchBlox.

I think it would be reasonable to have a script/batch file that  
created an index and then fired up the Lucene demo and WebLuke.  Very  
simple and by all means nowhere near the level of what Solr or any  
other vendor provides.  The pieces are all pretty much there, just  
need a script around it.

>
>
>>> Also, should this be in 2.3?
> Might be an idea to let it bed-down a little first. I'm not happy  
> with the (lack of) security at present and wouldn't want naive users  
> complaining of vulnerabilities introduced by its deployment.

I think we should wait for 2.3 to come out, either that or mark it as  
experimental and put notes about the known issues in a conspicuous  
place, such as a README.

-Grant

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

Mark Miller-3
In reply to this post by mark harwood

>>> I don't know that we have ever checked in IDE settings
>>>      
>
> GWT development is much easier with the IDE and there is a fair amount of manual setup required without the settings to run the "hosted" development environment. Hosted development is the key productivity benefit and allows debugging in Java (rather than building, deploying then having to debug Javascript). GWT provides Eclipse project generators to get started and they do not target other IDEs e.g. NetBeans because they claim those IDEs  typically do a good job of importing eclipse project settings (can't vouch for this myself, not having tried).  
>
>  
If I where coming into GWT fresh (as many will be), I would certainly be
happy to see a default eclipse setup file to get going. Initial
configuration can be a bit of a hurdle.

However, as someone who uses GWT quite a bit, I wouldn't use those
settings. I would use the Cypal Studio plugin for Eclipse and the GWT4NB
plugin for Netbeans. Both  pretty much setup the hosted development for
you and are more convenient than using GWT's eclipse tools.

However that info helps.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

Grant Ingersoll-2
In reply to this post by mark harwood
Hey Mark,

Any word on getting this committed as a contrib?

-Grant

On Dec 9, 2007, at 4:03 PM, markharw00d wrote:

> I've got a web-based version of Luke I'm happy to commit to contrib  
> now.
> This version includes some tidy up for developers working on Luke.  
> Eclipse .project and .classpath files have build path variables  
> defined to cater for different install locations for GWT in  
> development environments.
>
> Full code is currently here: http://www.inperspective.com/lucene/webluke.zip 
>   (17 mb)
> Unzip to "contrib" directory and run the usual ant build or import  
> project into Eclipse, set build path variables, clean project, and  
> run from there.
>
> The only open question is if we should bundle Jetty in the Lucene  
> binary distribution as part of the build packaging. This could be  
> used to launch both WebLuke and the existing luceneweb.war but adds  
> about 6 or 7 meg to the overall zipped download size.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

mark harwood

>
> Any word on getting this committed as a contrib?
Not really changed the code since the message below. I can commit pretty
much the contents of the zip file below any time you want.
Do folks still feel comfortable with the "bloat" this adds to the Lucene
source distro? The gwt-dev-windows.jar contains the Java2Javascript
compiler necessary for building and alone accounts for 10 mb. Including
Jetty adds another ~6 mb on top of that.

OK with this?

>
> -Grant
>
> On Dec 9, 2007, at 4:03 PM, markharw00d wrote:
>
>> I've got a web-based version of Luke I'm happy to commit to contrib now.
>> This version includes some tidy up for developers working on Luke.
>> Eclipse .project and .classpath files have build path variables
>> defined to cater for different install locations for GWT in
>> development environments.
>>
>> Full code is currently here:
>> http://www.inperspective.com/lucene/webluke.zip  (17 mb)
>> Unzip to "contrib" directory and run the usual ant build or import
>> project into Eclipse, set build path variables, clean project, and
>> run from there.
>>
>> The only open question is if we should bundle Jetty in the Lucene
>> binary distribution as part of the build packaging. This could be
>> used to launch both WebLuke and the existing luceneweb.war but adds
>> about 6 or 7 meg to the overall zipped download size.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

Stefan Trcek
On Thursday 24 April 2008 22:11:51 markharw00d wrote:

> > Any word on getting this committed as a contrib?
>
> Not really changed the code since the message below. I can commit
> pretty much the contents of the zip file below any time you want.
> Do folks still feel comfortable with the "bloat" this adds to the
> Lucene source distro? The gwt-dev-windows.jar contains the
> Java2Javascript compiler necessary for building and alone accounts
> for 10 mb. Including Jetty adds another ~6 mb on top of that.
>
> OK with this?

Do the apps in question run with winstone?  I use winstone currently for
servlet development and didn't encounter any problems. Quick start up
and low memory footprint.

http://winstone.sourceforge.net/

-r--r--r-- user group 327658 2008-04-10 11:28 winstone-0.9.10.jar

java -jar winstone-0.9.10.jar --webroot=webapps/userapplication

Stefan Trcek

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

Mathieu Lecarme
In reply to this post by mark harwood
markharw00d a écrit :

>
>>
>> Any word on getting this committed as a contrib?
> Not really changed the code since the message below. I can commit
> pretty much the contents of the zip file below any time you want.
> Do folks still feel comfortable with the "bloat" this adds to the
> Lucene source distro? The gwt-dev-windows.jar contains the
> Java2Javascript compiler necessary for building and alone accounts for
> 10 mb. Including Jetty adds another ~6 mb on top of that.
>
> OK with this?
>
Why don't use ivy or maven for that?

M.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

mark harwood
In reply to this post by mark harwood
>>Why don't use ivy or maven for that?
That would resurrect the Ant vs Maven debate around build systems. Not having used Maven I don't feel qualified to comment.

Stefan, the Winstone server appears to be LGPL not Apache which also adds some complexity. The GWT compiler is the main cause of the bloat here.

Cheers
Mark

----- Original Message ----
From: Mathieu Lecarme <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Friday, 25 April, 2008 9:44:54 AM
Subject: Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

markharw00d a écrit :

>
>>
>> Any word on getting this committed as a contrib?
> Not really changed the code since the message below. I can commit
> pretty much the contents of the zip file below any time you want.
> Do folks still feel comfortable with the "bloat" this adds to the
> Lucene source distro? The gwt-dev-windows.jar contains the
> Java2Javascript compiler necessary for building and alone accounts for
> 10 mb. Including Jetty adds another ~6 mb on top of that.
>
> OK with this?
>
Why don't use ivy or maven for that?

M.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


      __________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

Stefan Trcek
On Friday 25 April 2008 15:36:40 mark harwood wrote:
>
> Stefan, the Winstone server appears to be LGPL not Apache which also
> adds some complexity.

Currently also CDDL. The author was not aware to cause some licence
problems by GPL and thereafter offered the CDDL (from a mailing list
discussion). There may be some chance to obtain an Apache licence if
CDDL is not satisfying for the Lucene project. But - of course - your
choice.

Stefan


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

Grant Ingersoll-2
In reply to this post by mark harwood

On Apr 25, 2008, at 9:36 AM, mark harwood wrote:

>>> Why don't use ivy or maven for that?
> That would resurrect the Ant vs Maven debate around build systems.  
> Not having used Maven I don't feel qualified to comment.
>
> Stefan, the Winstone server appears to be LGPL not Apache which also  
> adds some complexity. The GWT compiler is the main cause of the  
> bloat here.

Can the build download the GWT compiler, as we do with many other  
things?  I think including Jetty is fine.  In fact, it would be great  
if we could do like Solr for our demo and have it startup in Jetty...  
but that is another day.

-Grant

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

Nadav Har'El
In reply to this post by mark harwood
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007, markharw00d wrote about "WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?":
> The only open question is if we should bundle Jetty in the Lucene binary
> distribution as part of the build packaging. This could be used to
> launch both WebLuke and the existing luceneweb.war but adds about 6 or 7
> meg to the overall zipped download size.
> Thoughts?

My thoughts is that 6-7 MB for a tiny HTTP Server and/or servlet engine is
way, way, too much. I'm surprise that Jetty, originally intended to be simple
and embeddable, reached that size (which is 10 times larger than Lucene's core,
for example)!

For demo purposes, I wrote myself something similar, and its (uncompressed)
.class size is:
  14 K for the basic HTTP server
  24 K for the servlet container (jaxax.servlet API support)
And there's also the Servlet API itself from Sun, at around 40 K (this is part
of J2EE but not of J2SE, so you need to include this as well if you want to
use the servlet API). And that's it.

I'm sure that similar tiny Web Servers can also be found on the Web, but if
there's interest, I can see about publishing mine.


--
Nadav Har'El                        |       Sunday, Apr 27 2008, 22 Nisan 5768
IBM Haifa Research Lab              |-----------------------------------------
                                    |Why do we drive on a parkway and park on
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |a driveway?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

Uwe Schindler
Here another Servlet 2.3 compatible container:

http://panfmp.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/panfmp/tools/mini-webserver/trunk/

It does not support web.xml files (instead uses a simple properties file),
but it supports almost everything needed to get simple servlets running with
path mappings etc. The support for web.xml was left out because of
compatibility with very old java versions without xml support and to keep it
small. JAR file is about 39 KB plus servlet.jar version 2.3 without JSP
classes (31 KB) and commons-logging.

We use it currenty for a CD-ROM based Lucene search engine. It's licensed in
"Apache 2.0" and Java 1.3 compatible (no generics, StringBuffer). The SVN
currenty lacks documentation and startup shell scripts, but a working config
file is supplied.

The SVN contains a little bit more jar files, but needed is only
webserver.jar, servlet-2.3.jar and commons-logging.jar. Some features are,
that the static content servlet can serve files directly from ZIP files
(e.g., http://localhost/file.zip/some/example.txt).

-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: [hidden email]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nadav Har'El [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 3:08 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?
>
> On Sun, Dec 09, 2007, markharw00d wrote about "WebLuke - include Jetty in
> Lucene binary distribution?":
> > The only open question is if we should bundle Jetty in the Lucene binary
> > distribution as part of the build packaging. This could be used to
> > launch both WebLuke and the existing luceneweb.war but adds about 6 or 7
> > meg to the overall zipped download size.
> > Thoughts?
>
> My thoughts is that 6-7 MB for a tiny HTTP Server and/or servlet engine is
> way, way, too much. I'm surprise that Jetty, originally intended to be
> simple
> and embeddable, reached that size (which is 10 times larger than Lucene's
> core,
> for example)!
>
> For demo purposes, I wrote myself something similar, and its
> (uncompressed)
> .class size is:
>   14 K for the basic HTTP server
>   24 K for the servlet container (jaxax.servlet API support)
> And there's also the Servlet API itself from Sun, at around 40 K (this is
> part
> of J2EE but not of J2SE, so you need to include this as well if you want
> to
> use the servlet API). And that's it.
>
> I'm sure that similar tiny Web Servers can also be found on the Web, but
> if
> there's interest, I can see about publishing mine.
>
>
> --
> Nadav Har'El                        |       Sunday, Apr 27 2008, 22 Nisan
> 5768
> IBM Haifa Research Lab              |-------------------------------------
> ----
>                                     |Why do we drive on a parkway and park
> on
> http://nadav.harel.org.il           |a driveway?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

John Wang-9
Hi guys:

     I am interested in what is the latest decision on webluke - I downloaded the zip, tried it and love it!

    Does it support all Luke's functionality? (especially the plugin support)

Thanks

-John

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:09 AM, Uwe Schindler <[hidden email]> wrote:
Here another Servlet 2.3 compatible container:

http://panfmp.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/panfmp/tools/mini-webserver/trunk/

It does not support web.xml files (instead uses a simple properties file),
but it supports almost everything needed to get simple servlets running with
path mappings etc. The support for web.xml was left out because of
compatibility with very old java versions without xml support and to keep it
small. JAR file is about 39 KB plus servlet.jar version 2.3 without JSP
classes (31 KB) and commons-logging.

We use it currenty for a CD-ROM based Lucene search engine. It's licensed in
"Apache 2.0" and Java 1.3 compatible (no generics, StringBuffer). The SVN
currenty lacks documentation and startup shell scripts, but a working config
file is supplied.

The SVN contains a little bit more jar files, but needed is only
webserver.jar, servlet-2.3.jar and commons-logging.jar. Some features are,
that the static content servlet can serve files directly from ZIP files
(e.g., http://localhost/file.zip/some/example.txt).

-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: [hidden email]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nadav Har'El [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 3:08 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?
>
> On Sun, Dec 09, 2007, markharw00d wrote about "WebLuke - include Jetty in
> Lucene binary distribution?":
> > The only open question is if we should bundle Jetty in the Lucene binary
> > distribution as part of the build packaging. This could be used to
> > launch both WebLuke and the existing luceneweb.war but adds about 6 or 7
> > meg to the overall zipped download size.
> > Thoughts?
>
> My thoughts is that 6-7 MB for a tiny HTTP Server and/or servlet engine is
> way, way, too much. I'm surprise that Jetty, originally intended to be
> simple
> and embeddable, reached that size (which is 10 times larger than Lucene's
> core,
> for example)!
>
> For demo purposes, I wrote myself something similar, and its
> (uncompressed)
> .class size is:
>   14 K for the basic HTTP server
>   24 K for the servlet container (jaxax.servlet API support)
> And there's also the Servlet API itself from Sun, at around 40 K (this is
> part
> of J2EE but not of J2SE, so you need to include this as well if you want
> to
> use the servlet API). And that's it.
>
> I'm sure that similar tiny Web Servers can also be found on the Web, but
> if
> there's interest, I can see about publishing mine.
>
>
> --
> Nadav Har'El                        |       Sunday, Apr 27 2008, 22 Nisan
> 5768
> IBM Haifa Research Lab              |-------------------------------------
> ----
>                                     |Why do we drive on a parkway and park
> on
> http://nadav.harel.org.il           |a driveway?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

Grant Ingersoll-2
Hey John,

I like WebLuke too, but am not sure what ever became of it.  It seemed like it had a lot of traction (http://www.lucidimagination.com/search/document/3b06db2b12dffb70/webluke_include_jetty_in_lucene_binary_distribution) but that the main objection was the size of the GWT stuff and a Web Server as part of the distribution.

Not sure whether Mark has been maintaining it or not.  

In other words, I'm +1 for WebLuke (and Luke, for that matter, although I know it has some GPL components) being a part of Lucene, even if, just maybe, it isn't part of the main distribution.

-Grant


On Jun 5, 2009, at 11:27 PM, John Wang wrote:

Hi guys:

     I am interested in what is the latest decision on webluke - I downloaded the zip, tried it and love it!

    Does it support all Luke's functionality? (especially the plugin support)

Thanks

-John

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:09 AM, Uwe Schindler <[hidden email]> wrote:
Here another Servlet 2.3 compatible container:

http://panfmp.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/panfmp/tools/mini-webserver/trunk/

It does not support web.xml files (instead uses a simple properties file),
but it supports almost everything needed to get simple servlets running with
path mappings etc. The support for web.xml was left out because of
compatibility with very old java versions without xml support and to keep it
small. JAR file is about 39 KB plus servlet.jar version 2.3 without JSP
classes (31 KB) and commons-logging.

We use it currenty for a CD-ROM based Lucene search engine. It's licensed in
"Apache 2.0" and Java 1.3 compatible (no generics, StringBuffer). The SVN
currenty lacks documentation and startup shell scripts, but a working config
file is supplied.

The SVN contains a little bit more jar files, but needed is only
webserver.jar, servlet-2.3.jar and commons-logging.jar. Some features are,
that the static content servlet can serve files directly from ZIP files
(e.g., http://localhost/file.zip/some/example.txt).

-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: [hidden email]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nadav Har'El [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 3:08 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?
>
> On Sun, Dec 09, 2007, markharw00d wrote about "WebLuke - include Jetty in
> Lucene binary distribution?":
> > The only open question is if we should bundle Jetty in the Lucene binary
> > distribution as part of the build packaging. This could be used to
> > launch both WebLuke and the existing luceneweb.war but adds about 6 or 7
> > meg to the overall zipped download size.
> > Thoughts?
>
> My thoughts is that 6-7 MB for a tiny HTTP Server and/or servlet engine is
> way, way, too much. I'm surprise that Jetty, originally intended to be
> simple
> and embeddable, reached that size (which is 10 times larger than Lucene's
> core,
> for example)!
>
> For demo purposes, I wrote myself something similar, and its
> (uncompressed)
> .class size is:
>   14 K for the basic HTTP server
>   24 K for the servlet container (jaxax.servlet API support)
> And there's also the Servlet API itself from Sun, at around 40 K (this is
> part
> of J2EE but not of J2SE, so you need to include this as well if you want
> to
> use the servlet API). And that's it.
>
> I'm sure that similar tiny Web Servers can also be found on the Web, but
> if
> there's interest, I can see about publishing mine.
>
>
> --
> Nadav Har'El                        |       Sunday, Apr 27 2008, 22 Nisan
> 5768
> IBM Haifa Research Lab              |-------------------------------------
> ----
>                                     |Why do we drive on a parkway and park
> on
> http://nadav.harel.org.il           |a driveway?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]



--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll

Search the Lucene ecosystem (Lucene/Solr/Nutch/Mahout/Tika/Droids) using Solr/Lucene:

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

mark harwood
Hi John/Grant.

I haven't done any more in developing WebLuke - although still use it regularly.
As Grant suggests there was an unease (mine) about bloating the Lucene distribution size with GWT dependencies so it wasn't rolled into contrib. However I guess I'm comfortable if no one else is concerned about this.

The GWT skin is useful for remote working but I think Luke could/should be built with a front-end-independent back end leaving the door open for  Swing or SWT front-ends for work with local indexes.
The current "Thinlet" skin is the piece that has the unfortunate GPL dependency. GWT is Apache licensed and so would be OK.

I would probably need to upgrade WebLuke to the latest version of GWT prior to any contribution and would also like to de-GWT-ize the back end.

I guess the main question is how to manage/build/package the contrib section given WebLuke could bring in Jetty and we already have 2 web-based contrib demos in there that could use this too.

Cheers
Mark





From: Grant Ingersoll <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 14:03:49
Subject: Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?

Hey John,

I like WebLuke too, but am not sure what ever became of it.  It seemed like it had a lot of traction (http://www.lucidimagination.com/search/document/3b06db2b12dffb70/webluke_include_jetty_in_lucene_binary_distribution) but that the main objection was the size of the GWT stuff and a Web Server as part of the distribution.

Not sure whether Mark has been maintaining it or not.  

In other words, I'm +1 for WebLuke (and Luke, for that matter, although I know it has some GPL components) being a part of Lucene, even if, just maybe, it isn't part of the main distribution.

-Grant


On Jun 5, 2009, at 11:27 PM, John Wang wrote:

Hi guys:

     I am interested in what is the latest decision on webluke - I downloaded the zip, tried it and love it!

    Does it support all Luke's functionality? (especially the plugin support)

Thanks

-John

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:09 AM, Uwe Schindler <[hidden email]> wrote:
Here another Servlet 2.3 compatible container:

http://panfmp.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/panfmp/tools/mini-webserver/trunk/

It does not support web.xml files (instead uses a simple properties file),
but it supports almost everything needed to get simple servlets running with
path mappings etc. The support for web.xml was left out because of
compatibility with very old java versions without xml support and to keep it
small. JAR file is about 39 KB plus servlet.jar version 2.3 without JSP
classes (31 KB) and commons-logging.

We use it currenty for a CD-ROM based Lucene search engine. It's licensed in
"Apache 2.0" and Java 1.3 compatible (no generics, StringBuffer). The SVN
currenty lacks documentation and startup shell scripts, but a working config
file is supplied.

The SVN contains a little bit more jar files, but needed is only
webserver.jar, servlet-2.3.jar and commons-logging.jar. Some features are,
that the static content servlet can serve files directly from ZIP files
(e.g., http://localhost/file.zip/some/example.txt).

-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: [hidden email]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nadav Har'El [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 3:08 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: WebLuke - include Jetty in Lucene binary distribution?
>
> On Sun, Dec 09, 2007, markharw00d wrote about "WebLuke - include Jetty in
> Lucene binary distribution?":
> > The only open question is if we should bundle Jetty in the Lucene binary
> > distribution as part of the build packaging. This could be used to
> > launch both WebLuke and the existing luceneweb.war but adds about 6 or 7
> > meg to the overall zipped download size.
> > Thoughts?
>
> My thoughts is that 6-7 MB for a tiny HTTP Server and/or servlet engine is
> way, way, too much. I'm surprise that Jetty, originally intended to be
> simple
> and embeddable, reached that size (which is 10 times larger than Lucene's
> core,
> for example)!
>
> For demo purposes, I wrote myself something similar, and its
> (uncompressed)
> .class size is:
>   14 K for the basic HTTP server
>   24 K for the servlet container (jaxax.servlet API support)
> And there's also the Servlet API itself from Sun, at around 40 K (this is
> part
> of J2EE but not of J2SE, so you need to include this as well if you want
> to
> use the servlet API). And that's it.
>
> I'm sure that similar tiny Web Servers can also be found on the Web, but
> if
> there's interest, I can see about publishing mine.
>
>
> --
> Nadav Har'El                        |       Sunday, Apr 27 2008, 22 Nisan
> 5768
> IBM Haifa Research Lab              |-------------------------------------
> ----
>                                     |Why do we drive on a parkway and park
> on
> http://nadav.harel.org.il           |a driveway?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]



--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll

Search the Lucene ecosystem (Lucene/Solr/Nutch/Mahout/Tika/Droids) using Solr/Lucene: