Forked Mode / Memory Usage etc.

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

Forked Mode / Memory Usage etc.

Graeme Rocher
Administrator
Hi all,

So I've been working on Grails 2.2 and the ability to fork the JVM to
run the application. This basically allows us to isolate the classpath
so that build/test dependencies don't leak into the running
application.

I've been refining startup time and memory usage during this process.
For backwards compatibility we will still have the old way of running
the application embedded in the current JVM.

Anyway, right now when you do 'grails run-app' with forked mode
enabled it kicks of the usual Grails JVM and then forks off a
secondary JVM and results in both JVMs running. For a fresh Grails
application this means 2 JVMs of roughly 300mb each (600mb usage
total).

Ideally we want to reduce memory usage, so what I'm thinking is
allowing the first JVM to exit and leaving only the JVM running that
has the Tomcat container. This would mean only 300mb of memory usage
for a simple application, but it means we need to add a secondary
'grails stop-app' or 'grails stop' command. Do folks think this will
be a problem? Disadvantages I can see if that I imagine IDEs will need
updating. Unless we add a new command, say called 'grails run', that
exits after the container is running and leave 'run-app' as is.

Thoughts?

--
Graeme Rocher
Grails Project Lead
SpringSource - A Division of VMware
http://www.springsource.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Forked Mode / Memory Usage etc.

smaldini
Hi,

'run' alternative sounds a good tradeoff plus it could combine both forked mode without specifying a param and introduce behavior change without breaking anything.

Pretty cool job by the way !

Cheers

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Graeme Rocher <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,

So I've been working on Grails 2.2 and the ability to fork the JVM to
run the application. This basically allows us to isolate the classpath
so that build/test dependencies don't leak into the running
application.

I've been refining startup time and memory usage during this process.
For backwards compatibility we will still have the old way of running
the application embedded in the current JVM.

Anyway, right now when you do 'grails run-app' with forked mode
enabled it kicks of the usual Grails JVM and then forks off a
secondary JVM and results in both JVMs running. For a fresh Grails
application this means 2 JVMs of roughly 300mb each (600mb usage
total).

Ideally we want to reduce memory usage, so what I'm thinking is
allowing the first JVM to exit and leaving only the JVM running that
has the Tomcat container. This would mean only 300mb of memory usage
for a simple application, but it means we need to add a secondary
'grails stop-app' or 'grails stop' command. Do folks think this will
be a problem? Disadvantages I can see if that I imagine IDEs will need
updating. Unless we add a new command, say called 'grails run', that
exits after the container is running and leave 'run-app' as is.

Thoughts?

--
Graeme Rocher
Grails Project Lead
SpringSource - A Division of VMware
http://www.springsource.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email





--
Stéphane MALDINI
--


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Forked Mode / Memory Usage etc.

Ryan Vanderwerf
In reply to this post by Graeme Rocher
My 2c, I personally like the idea of adding it as a new option like you said and leaving run-app alone. That way people who aren't that savvy don't get confused, but the people who are can make use of it. I don't think anyone will enjoy 2 300mb jvm's running the whole time though, especially based on comments lately on the list (which is why I assume you are asking for input).

Ryan
________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Graeme Rocher [[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 10:46 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [grails-dev] Forked Mode / Memory Usage etc.

Hi all,

So I've been working on Grails 2.2 and the ability to fork the JVM to
run the application. This basically allows us to isolate the classpath
so that build/test dependencies don't leak into the running
application.

I've been refining startup time and memory usage during this process.
For backwards compatibility we will still have the old way of running
the application embedded in the current JVM.

Anyway, right now when you do 'grails run-app' with forked mode
enabled it kicks of the usual Grails JVM and then forks off a
secondary JVM and results in both JVMs running. For a fresh Grails
application this means 2 JVMs of roughly 300mb each (600mb usage
total).

Ideally we want to reduce memory usage, so what I'm thinking is
allowing the first JVM to exit and leaving only the JVM running that
has the Tomcat container. This would mean only 300mb of memory usage
for a simple application, but it means we need to add a secondary
'grails stop-app' or 'grails stop' command. Do folks think this will
be a problem? Disadvantages I can see if that I imagine IDEs will need
updating. Unless we add a new command, say called 'grails run', that
exits after the container is running and leave 'run-app' as is.

Thoughts?

--
Graeme Rocher
Grails Project Lead
SpringSource - A Division of VMware
http://www.springsource.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Forked Mode / Memory Usage etc.

rlovtangen
We're talking memory usage on developer machines, not on production servers, so I don't mind two 300 MB jvms running.

Ronny

On Jul 19, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Ryan Vanderwerf wrote:

> My 2c, I personally like the idea of adding it as a new option like you said and leaving run-app alone. That way people who aren't that savvy don't get confused, but the people who are can make use of it. I don't think anyone will enjoy 2 300mb jvm's running the whole time though, especially based on comments lately on the list (which is why I assume you are asking for input).
>
> Ryan
> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Graeme Rocher [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 10:46 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [grails-dev] Forked Mode / Memory Usage etc.
>
> Hi all,
>
> So I've been working on Grails 2.2 and the ability to fork the JVM to
> run the application. This basically allows us to isolate the classpath
> so that build/test dependencies don't leak into the running
> application.
>
> I've been refining startup time and memory usage during this process.
> For backwards compatibility we will still have the old way of running
> the application embedded in the current JVM.
>
> Anyway, right now when you do 'grails run-app' with forked mode
> enabled it kicks of the usual Grails JVM and then forks off a
> secondary JVM and results in both JVMs running. For a fresh Grails
> application this means 2 JVMs of roughly 300mb each (600mb usage
> total).
>
> Ideally we want to reduce memory usage, so what I'm thinking is
> allowing the first JVM to exit and leaving only the JVM running that
> has the Tomcat container. This would mean only 300mb of memory usage
> for a simple application, but it means we need to add a secondary
> 'grails stop-app' or 'grails stop' command. Do folks think this will
> be a problem? Disadvantages I can see if that I imagine IDEs will need
> updating. Unless we add a new command, say called 'grails run', that
> exits after the container is running and leave 'run-app' as is.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Graeme Rocher
> Grails Project Lead
> SpringSource - A Division of VMware
> http://www.springsource.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>
>    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>
>    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Forked Mode / Memory Usage etc.

basejump (Josh)
In reply to this post by Ryan Vanderwerf
I think most of the memory gripes are around the production and deployment memory usage, not so much around development.
The key issue I see and hear on dev is the startup and feedback times , not the memory usage.

On Jul 19, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Ryan Vanderwerf wrote:

> My 2c, I personally like the idea of adding it as a new option like you said and leaving run-app alone. That way people who aren't that savvy don't get confused, but the people who are can make use of it. I don't think anyone will enjoy 2 300mb jvm's running the whole time though, especially based on comments lately on the list (which is why I assume you are asking for input).
>
> Ryan


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Forked Mode / Memory Usage etc.

Danilo Tuler
Disagree. I think dev time memory usage is also an issue.
Any improvement in that area will be welcome.

Danilo

On Thursday, 19 de July de 2012 at 13:13, Josh (basejump) wrote:

I think most of the memory gripes are around the production and deployment memory usage, not so much around development.
The key issue I see and hear on dev is the startup and feedback times , not the memory usage.

On Jul 19, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Ryan Vanderwerf wrote:

My 2c, I personally like the idea of adding it as a new option like you said and leaving run-app alone. That way people who aren't that savvy don't get confused, but the people who are can make use of it. I don't think anyone will enjoy 2 300mb jvm's running the whole time though, especially based on comments lately on the list (which is why I assume you are asking for input).

Ryan


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Forked Mode / Memory Usage etc.

Nathan Wells
If you don't introduce it as a new command you need to ensure:

1) memory footprint stays the same (or smaller)
2) the interface points don't change (at least til Grails 3.0)
3) the startup time is the same

I imagine forking a separate JVM would have some impact on (3), but I haven't heard anything about it. Can you comment on that, Graeme?

Thanks,
Nathan Wells


On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Danilo Tuler <[hidden email]> wrote:
Disagree. I think dev time memory usage is also an issue.
Any improvement in that area will be welcome.

Danilo

On Thursday, 19 de July de 2012 at 13:13, Josh (basejump) wrote:

I think most of the memory gripes are around the production and deployment memory usage, not so much around development.
The key issue I see and hear on dev is the startup and feedback times , not the memory usage.

On Jul 19, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Ryan Vanderwerf wrote:

My 2c, I personally like the idea of adding it as a new option like you said and leaving run-app alone. That way people who aren't that savvy don't get confused, but the people who are can make use of it. I don't think anyone will enjoy 2 300mb jvm's running the whole time though, especially based on comments lately on the list (which is why I assume you are asking for input).

Ryan


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Forked Mode / Memory Usage etc.

Sandro Martini

Hi all,
I suggest the new command way for the new fork mode (maybe calling them start and stop, like in many other linux services).

And on the memory usage I can say that many corporate developers use outdated pc, many times with only 2 GB or ram, so 300 MB for the first jvm that in that case would not do so much, should be lowered if possible.

Anyway, great work, congratulations.

Sandro

Il giorno 19/lug/2012 21:30, "Nathan Wells" <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
If you don't introduce it as a new command you need to ensure:

1) memory footprint stays the same (or smaller)
2) the interface points don't change (at least til Grails 3.0)
3) the startup time is the same

I imagine forking a separate JVM would have some impact on (3), but I haven't heard anything about it. Can you comment on that, Graeme?

Thanks,
Nathan Wells


On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Danilo Tuler <[hidden email]> wrote:
Disagree. I think dev time memory usage is also an issue.
Any improvement in that area will be welcome.

Danilo

On Thursday, 19 de July de 2012 at 13:13, Josh (basejump) wrote:

I think most of the memory gripes are around the production and deployment memory usage, not so much around development.
The key issue I see and hear on dev is the startup and feedback times , not the memory usage.

On Jul 19, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Ryan Vanderwerf wrote:

My 2c, I personally like the idea of adding it as a new option like you said and leaving run-app alone. That way people who aren't that savvy don't get confused, but the people who are can make use of it. I don't think anyone will enjoy 2 300mb jvm's running the whole time though, especially based on comments lately on the list (which is why I assume you are asking for input).

Ryan


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Forked Mode / Memory Usage etc.

Graeme Rocher-2
Thanks for the feedback all. I will go with the separate command approach

Cheers

-- 
Graeme Rocher

On Thursday, July 19, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Sandro Martini wrote:

Hi all,
I suggest the new command way for the new fork mode (maybe calling them start and stop, like in many other linux services).

And on the memory usage I can say that many corporate developers use outdated pc, many times with only 2 GB or ram, so 300 MB for the first jvm that in that case would not do so much, should be lowered if possible.

Anyway, great work, congratulations.

Sandro

Il giorno 19/lug/2012 21:30, "Nathan Wells" <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
If you don't introduce it as a new command you need to ensure:

1) memory footprint stays the same (or smaller)
2) the interface points don't change (at least til Grails 3.0)
3) the startup time is the same

I imagine forking a separate JVM would have some impact on (3), but I haven't heard anything about it. Can you comment on that, Graeme?

Thanks,
Nathan Wells


On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Danilo Tuler <[hidden email]> wrote:
Disagree. I think dev time memory usage is also an issue.
Any improvement in that area will be welcome.

Danilo

On Thursday, 19 de July de 2012 at 13:13, Josh (basejump) wrote:

I think most of the memory gripes are around the production and deployment memory usage, not so much around development.
The key issue I see and hear on dev is the startup and feedback times , not the memory usage.

On Jul 19, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Ryan Vanderwerf wrote:

My 2c, I personally like the idea of adding it as a new option like you said and leaving run-app alone. That way people who aren't that savvy don't get confused, but the people who are can make use of it. I don't think anyone will enjoy 2 300mb jvm's running the whole time though, especially based on comments lately on the list (which is why I assume you are asking for input).

Ryan


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Forked Mode / Memory Usage etc.

Antony Jones
I like that you are working on this :)

I am slightly concerned about the choice of 'run' and 'run-app'
though. 'run-app' is quite descriptive, but 'run' removes that
discriminator which makes it unclear to a user what it is for. Is
there a suffix we can add to 'run' which better describes what it is
doing? Something like 'run-cli' or 'run-env' or something. 'run' could
of course just be an alias for that, as I assume it will become the
default command in future.

Cheers,
Antony

On 20 July 2012 08:47, Graeme Rocher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks for the feedback all. I will go with the separate command approach
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Graeme Rocher
>
> On Thursday, July 19, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Sandro Martini wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> I suggest the new command way for the new fork mode (maybe calling them
> start and stop, like in many other linux services).
>
> And on the memory usage I can say that many corporate developers use
> outdated pc, many times with only 2 GB or ram, so 300 MB for the first jvm
> that in that case would not do so much, should be lowered if possible.
>
> Anyway, great work, congratulations.
>
> Sandro
>
> Il giorno 19/lug/2012 21:30, "Nathan Wells" <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> If you don't introduce it as a new command you need to ensure:
>
> 1) memory footprint stays the same (or smaller)
> 2) the interface points don't change (at least til Grails 3.0)
> 3) the startup time is the same
>
> I imagine forking a separate JVM would have some impact on (3), but I
> haven't heard anything about it. Can you comment on that, Graeme?
>
> Thanks,
> Nathan Wells
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Danilo Tuler <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> Disagree. I think dev time memory usage is also an issue.
> Any improvement in that area will be welcome.
>
> Danilo
>
> On Thursday, 19 de July de 2012 at 13:13, Josh (basejump) wrote:
>
> I think most of the memory gripes are around the production and deployment
> memory usage, not so much around development.
> The key issue I see and hear on dev is the startup and feedback times , not
> the memory usage.
>
> On Jul 19, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Ryan Vanderwerf wrote:
>
> My 2c, I personally like the idea of adding it as a new option like you said
> and leaving run-app alone. That way people who aren't that savvy don't get
> confused, but the people who are can make use of it. I don't think anyone
> will enjoy 2 300mb jvm's running the whole time though, especially based on
> comments lately on the list (which is why I assume you are asking for
> input).
>
> Ryan
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>
> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>
>
>



--
________________________________
ꜽ . antony jones . http://www.enzy.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Forked Mode / Memory Usage etc.

Graeme Rocher
Administrator
In the end we decided to go with one command (run-app) with a
configuration setting in BuildConfig (disabled by default) if you want
forking

Cheers

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Antony Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I like that you are working on this :)
>
> I am slightly concerned about the choice of 'run' and 'run-app'
> though. 'run-app' is quite descriptive, but 'run' removes that
> discriminator which makes it unclear to a user what it is for. Is
> there a suffix we can add to 'run' which better describes what it is
> doing? Something like 'run-cli' or 'run-env' or something. 'run' could
> of course just be an alias for that, as I assume it will become the
> default command in future.
>
> Cheers,
> Antony
>
> On 20 July 2012 08:47, Graeme Rocher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Thanks for the feedback all. I will go with the separate command approach
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> --
>> Graeme Rocher
>>
>> On Thursday, July 19, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Sandro Martini wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>> I suggest the new command way for the new fork mode (maybe calling them
>> start and stop, like in many other linux services).
>>
>> And on the memory usage I can say that many corporate developers use
>> outdated pc, many times with only 2 GB or ram, so 300 MB for the first jvm
>> that in that case would not do so much, should be lowered if possible.
>>
>> Anyway, great work, congratulations.
>>
>> Sandro
>>
>> Il giorno 19/lug/2012 21:30, "Nathan Wells" <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>>
>> If you don't introduce it as a new command you need to ensure:
>>
>> 1) memory footprint stays the same (or smaller)
>> 2) the interface points don't change (at least til Grails 3.0)
>> 3) the startup time is the same
>>
>> I imagine forking a separate JVM would have some impact on (3), but I
>> haven't heard anything about it. Can you comment on that, Graeme?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nathan Wells
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Danilo Tuler <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Disagree. I think dev time memory usage is also an issue.
>> Any improvement in that area will be welcome.
>>
>> Danilo
>>
>> On Thursday, 19 de July de 2012 at 13:13, Josh (basejump) wrote:
>>
>> I think most of the memory gripes are around the production and deployment
>> memory usage, not so much around development.
>> The key issue I see and hear on dev is the startup and feedback times , not
>> the memory usage.
>>
>> On Jul 19, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Ryan Vanderwerf wrote:
>>
>> My 2c, I personally like the idea of adding it as a new option like you said
>> and leaving run-app alone. That way people who aren't that savvy don't get
>> confused, but the people who are can make use of it. I don't think anyone
>> will enjoy 2 300mb jvm's running the whole time though, especially based on
>> comments lately on the list (which is why I assume you are asking for
>> input).
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>>
>> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ________________________________
> ꜽ . antony jones . http://www.enzy.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>
>     http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>



--
Graeme Rocher
Grails Project Lead
SpringSource - A Division of VMware
http://www.springsource.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Forked Mode / Memory Usage etc.

Marc Palmer Local
It needs to fail very gracefully if you forgot to stop the previous one, preferably offering option to stop it for you and carry on running.

Nothing more annoying than twisting time trying to run the app again to get a port in use error.

Sent from my iPad

On 23 Jul 2012, at 07:45, Graeme Rocher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In the end we decided to go with one command (run-app) with a
> configuration setting in BuildConfig (disabled by default) if you want
> forking
>
> Cheers
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Antony Jones <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I like that you are working on this :)
>>
>> I am slightly concerned about the choice of 'run' and 'run-app'
>> though. 'run-app' is quite descriptive, but 'run' removes that
>> discriminator which makes it unclear to a user what it is for. Is
>> there a suffix we can add to 'run' which better describes what it is
>> doing? Something like 'run-cli' or 'run-env' or something. 'run' could
>> of course just be an alias for that, as I assume it will become the
>> default command in future.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Antony
>>
>> On 20 July 2012 08:47, Graeme Rocher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Thanks for the feedback all. I will go with the separate command approach
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> --
>>> Graeme Rocher
>>>
>>> On Thursday, July 19, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Sandro Martini wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I suggest the new command way for the new fork mode (maybe calling them
>>> start and stop, like in many other linux services).
>>>
>>> And on the memory usage I can say that many corporate developers use
>>> outdated pc, many times with only 2 GB or ram, so 300 MB for the first jvm
>>> that in that case would not do so much, should be lowered if possible.
>>>
>>> Anyway, great work, congratulations.
>>>
>>> Sandro
>>>
>>> Il giorno 19/lug/2012 21:30, "Nathan Wells" <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>>>
>>> If you don't introduce it as a new command you need to ensure:
>>>
>>> 1) memory footprint stays the same (or smaller)
>>> 2) the interface points don't change (at least til Grails 3.0)
>>> 3) the startup time is the same
>>>
>>> I imagine forking a separate JVM would have some impact on (3), but I
>>> haven't heard anything about it. Can you comment on that, Graeme?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nathan Wells
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Danilo Tuler <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Disagree. I think dev time memory usage is also an issue.
>>> Any improvement in that area will be welcome.
>>>
>>> Danilo
>>>
>>> On Thursday, 19 de July de 2012 at 13:13, Josh (basejump) wrote:
>>>
>>> I think most of the memory gripes are around the production and deployment
>>> memory usage, not so much around development.
>>> The key issue I see and hear on dev is the startup and feedback times , not
>>> the memory usage.
>>>
>>> On Jul 19, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Ryan Vanderwerf wrote:
>>>
>>> My 2c, I personally like the idea of adding it as a new option like you said
>>> and leaving run-app alone. That way people who aren't that savvy don't get
>>> confused, but the people who are can make use of it. I don't think anyone
>>> will enjoy 2 300mb jvm's running the whole time though, especially based on
>>> comments lately on the list (which is why I assume you are asking for
>>> input).
>>>
>>> Ryan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>>>
>>> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ________________________________
>> ꜽ . antony jones . http://www.enzy.org
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>>
>>    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>
>
> --
> Graeme Rocher
> Grails Project Lead
> SpringSource - A Division of VMware
> http://www.springsource.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>
>    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email