Tomcat Reviews

We use the solution as a web server for web-based applications. We also build data containers using it. 

The solution is convenient. It is a comfortable and easy-to-use solution for my use cases. 

The product needs to have more updates. 

I have been using the product for ten years. 

I rate the solution's scalability a nine out of ten. 

There is no complexity in deploying Tomcat. 

We regularly upgrade to the latest versions of Tomcat and apply security patches to comply with the latest security aspects.

I rate it a nine out of ten. 

Tomcat is actively used, and there are many more instances like it. Numerous sites using this application server, which is relatively easy to set up. I can use JBoss or any other deployment tool that is available, but I mostly use some technical tools for this purpose.

Tomcat is a single-server solution for deploying applications that can scale effectively. It's a good choice because it simplifies deployment. Once you package your application, deployment is straightforward and efficient.

If you have multiple tasks, you definitely need different ideas. However, if you only consider the deployment of an application to a target server, it’s mainly about the technical performance. There might be some challenges because it’s only a website, but the server should solve the issue. You deploy the website there, and sometimes you might need multiple servers.

I have been using Tomcat for eight years.

The solution has good support.

Spring Boot is the most commonly used development tool, everyone is using Tomcat, which comes bundled with Spring Boot. Spring Acura comes with a Tomcat category.It provides a good UI and makes it more applicable as long as the client resources are accessible. There is no difference; we're using a single port. Anybody can assign a port number to it. You cannot change it to your firmware, but you can change it.

To deploy an application in Tomcat, you simply need to install the software, navigate to the deployment directory, and place the WAR  or JAR file there. Registering the server is then necessary. The time required for deployment depends on the size of the WAR or JAR file. It's better to place the file in the appropriate directory for your specific product. Be aware that the deployment time can vary, in a SaaS environment. Generally, deployment times are quick, but this can change based on the application.

I'm using both Tomcat and GlassFish.

When declaring the application, the springboard is ready for use with Apache Tomcat. By default, it comes this way when you unplug it from Git. So, when you are deploying any application, it uses Apache Tomcat by default.

One engineer is enough for the solution.

In data centers, we need to analyze the backlog. You need a cost analyst to determine if integration or migration is necessary. Both are important for identifying requirements. Once you have clarity on these points, you can proceed with management. If these factors are achievable in the decision-making process, then it's worth considering.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Tomcat is a cloud-based platform. Previously, deploying applications required setting up a Tomcat instance and then deploying the application on it. However, our solution has streamlined the process by prebuilding and prepackaging multiple services, each equipped with its own embedded Tomcat instance. This simplifies deployment, maintenance, and configuration tasks. Instead of managing separate instances for each application, we can now seamlessly deploy each application with its own embedded Tomcat instance in the cloud environment.

Tomcat has connectors like REST requests to connect the front end. Also, some parts of the inter-system communication go through REST. External connections with third parties occasionally involve both REST and SOAP protocols. Tomcat is versatile in accommodating these various communication methods.

We are using Tomcat primarily as a request blocker. It manages queues and handles routing. The size of these queues can be adjusted to scale the application, accommodating perhaps 50-100 REST connections. Using these tools, we achieve our scalability goals. Tomcat is a highly scalable solution.

Tomcat is a polished product that has been around for a long time. It should be simple and high-performing, with the ability to grow and maintain stability. The fewer features it has, the more stable it will be.

Also, there could be more configuration options. It's always lovely to have finely tuned-configurations.

I have been using Tomcat for many years.

The product is stable. I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten.

The solution's scalability is impressive. We manage multiple ports for various systems; for instance, one of our systems utilizes eight ports. Consequently, we deploy the corresponding package eight times. Additionally, we employ a load balancer to distribute traffic across these eight ports, effectively managing incoming requests. Scaling horizontally involves utilizing updates, and there's potential for further scalability in this direction.

I have some limited experience with JBoss. Tomcat has become the standard now. There are other application servers like JBoss. They offer some excellent features for web projects. However, Tomcat is basic. Other servers provide more on top of that, which can be advantageous in some ways but also disadvantageous in others. They may be harder to support, have some issues, and be more complex.

Additionally, they might not scale horizontally as well. That was my impression maybe ten years ago. However, I believe Tomcat is now the de facto standard, and you'd need solid reasons to choose anything over it, perhaps for specific features that you can't find in Tomcat but might be available in other application servers. On the other hand, Tomcat is simple, quick, and scalable, making it a perfect solution.

The setup process is straightforward. Also, additional fine-tuning options are available in the application setup. Overall, it is a polished product. It has been evaluated over time and effectively meets our needs. Tomcat is pretty packaged together for deployment.

We deployed it in-house.

The product is free of cost.

We use it locally. It's really fast for development and very easy to deploy in production. We are using all of this with a single distribution. We have the same Tomcat version we use on our local machines, test servers, and production. Having this same deployment allows us to test it locally and on test systems before deploying it to production.

I suggest going with the embedded Tomcat, which is available with Spring. Let's say you use a job framework like Spring, incorporating Tomcat.

We have multiple web services, some accessible internally and others externally. We employ a set of firewalls to protect our internal services. Additionally, we use microservices for functionalities for external access. These functionalities are developed into separate, small web services and secured externally. The security measures, including firewalls and server-to-server access, are implemented independently of Tomcat within our setup.

The product is simple and easy to scale. Overall, I rate the product a ten out of ten.

Most microservices developed in Java are based on the Spring Boot framework, which ships Tomcast as the application server for each microservice.

Tomcat is not like a standalone application server because its main end use is to ship microservices. We don't use it like a standalone server nowadays.

If Tomcat could support the driver's VIN, they can run natively without the GBM. Now, we can run what we call the native cloud application that doesn't require GBM. If Tomcat can support that, it's going to improve performance and backup.

I have been using Tomcat for more than ten years. It's now embedded in Spring Boot applications, and the most modern architectures are based on microservices.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten.

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. The scalability now is mainly for microservices that run on Tomcat, which are shifted like containers, and the scalability of the containers is the same, independent of whether the server applications are from cards or other things. So, scalability for now is much easier.

The solution is suitable for small and medium businesses (SMBs).

I worked with JBoss WildFly. We chose Tomcat because it is already integrated with Spring Boot framework, that's its main strength. If I compare it to JBoss, which is still not mainly integrated with that kind of framework.

It is embedded now, so we don't have any integration to do because Spring Boot comes with it already. It's like one integrated environment with Spring Boot.

The deployment method can be on-premises and on cloud. 

I would rate the pricing a ten out of ten, where one is high price and ten is low price. The pricing is pretty low. 

I would recommend using this solution. Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I have used Tomcat as a developer. We have integrated multiple things with Tomcat using the multiple packages within it. I have used bits and pieces of Tomcat for multiple things in multiple ways. With Tomcat, libraries can be exported and imported, converting it into a JAF file. Tomcat can be used to explore things, starting with the server configuration.

The most valuable feature of Tomcat is its ability to export libraries into different instances so that I can use it not only in one application but in multiple applications.

Suppose Tomcat is segregating its own version to utilize it in a testing area. It will be useful if a direct report concerning a particular server configuration or application usage is readily available in the dashboard.

I have been using Tomcat for 13 years.

Tomcat is a very stable solution.

Tomcat is a scalable solution. More than 100 users are using Tomcat in our organization.

Tomcat's initial setup is very easy.

Tomcat's pricing is very cheap.

I would recommend Tomcat to other users.

Overall, I rate Tomcat ten out of ten.

Tomcat is there in most vendor solutions, and people rarely agree to port it to JBoss. So, most business applications have it. Additionally, multiple banking solutions are using Tomcat. Also, the solution runs on Solaris, AIX, Windows, and Linux.

Since I don't have too much exposure to the solution, I cannot comment on the features I like the most in the solution.

Vulnerability is one of the areas that can be considered an issue in the solution. Apart from that, there are no other issues with the solution. Also, I cannot comment on what additional features and changes need to be made in Tomcat.

With the solution's community version, we always have some patches and bug releases. However, we cannot deploy it since the vendor doesn't certify the book fixes in the solution. In short, we cannot just use it in production and test it ourselves when the vendor does not certify it. If a vendor is using a Tomcat-based application, then the vendor should be prompt enough to fix the available bugs in that particular version, which is not the case in reality. Any vendor who releases a product on Tom Cat should keep revising the version of their product based on the latest available bug-free version. These are some of the areas which can be challenging for those using Tomcat.

I have been using Tomcat for a long time now. So, it is not a new thing. Previously, the only concern in our organization was that we were stuck with open-source Tomcat. Before, Tom Cat was available in Red Hat's version, which got removed later. Now, they have packaged it under JBoss. Currently, it is a challenge for us to maintain the solution as an open-source tool.

Our company doesn't face any stability issues while using Tomcat. The only challenge we face using the solution is the bug-fixing scenario. So, when the security does a scanning, especially vulnerability scanning, we get into trouble. The vulnerability scanning points out a lot of bug fixes. Also, the vendors are not ready to test, or they don't give us testing results in a timely manner. Since it remains a pending issue, specifically the vulnerability issues, we cannot close it on time since it is on an open-source platform. The open-source community has introduced a patched version, but when a company uses Tomcat, the vendor may not be prompt enough to certify it with the latest patches and bug fixes.

The number of users can vary greatly depending on the specific product they opt for, and since I don't have an inventory for all the products that users are using, I cannot comment on the numbers. Generally, there are both back-office users and customer-facing users in most solutions.

Speaking about scalability, we use NGINX in front of Tomcat.

I won't be able to provide a rating on the scalability of the solution since we don't have a requirement in a company to scale up as of now. Also, we don't see such uses in our company wherein we have to consider a need beyond the four people who use the solution in our company.

There is no technical support since it is an open-source solution. In our organization, we attempted to secure paid support, but we were unable to reach a consensus internally to move in that direction.

In our organization, we use IBM WebSphere.

The solution's initial setup is straightforward since it is a file-based configuration.

Steps in deployment involve installing the product and then copying the configuration.

If it is a community version of the solution, no payment is required. However, if it is a Linux version, we must buy the solution from JBoss.

In our company, we always favor products like IBM WebSphere as it is a vendor product for which we get the right amount of support we need. Also, we are using IBM WebSphere on AIX. Hence considering our use cases, we feel that IBM WebSphere is a more stable and reliable platform. So as a critical system, we are using the aforementioned solution. We use Tomcat in a company when we have no other options and are forced to use it, especially in scenarios where no other platforms are supported. So, if we have an option in our company, then we keep the usage rate of Tomcat low. Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.

Our company uses the solution as a web server for hosting items. Anyone in the world can access website that is hosted on top of the solution. 

We implement the solution for customers in banking, investment banking, and government. All of our customers host with the solution. 

The solution is very, very fast and provides immediate website availability around the world. 

You can host any compatible website. 

The solution has very robust functionality. 

The solution cannot host .NET applications. 

I have been using the solution for eleven years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is very scalable and you can add any number of applications on top of it. 

The solution is open forum so it is difficult to get technical support if you need it. We don't really require technical support. 

The setup is straightforward and very easy. 

We implement the solution for customers. Deployment takes a couple of hours depending on use case. 

If you are deploying for normal users, then deployment will take a maximum of five or six hours. If you are deploying for direction users, then deployment will take eight or nine hours. 

First, you need to get the binaries for the server. Once the binary is optimized, you need configure your server to optimal size based on your requirements. Then, you quickly start your server using the startup and do any stacking. 

One developer good at JAVA and two developers good at networking can completely deploy and manage the solution for customers. 

The solution is open source so is free. 

I definitely recommend the solution for website hosting. I rate it a seven out of ten only because customer support is not available. 

We use Apache Tomcat servers to host our Actimize application.

In terms of NICE Actimize, it is very useful. That said, it can host such wider options for such a heavy application. 

The GUI is smooth. Whatever configurations are required, they're compatible in terms of the Actimize solution, and they tend to provide the best experience for the user.

It is easy to set up.

The solution can scale.

It is stable. 

I've not used any other products in that space apart from the Apache versions. Having nothing to compare it to, it's hard to see what a weakness is. 

Some items may be vulnerable due to IT attacks or IT security breaches. If Apache can come up with a better solution to provide better security, that would be ideal. It is something that could be improved in both Apache and NICE Actimize.

I've been using the solution for my entire career. I've used it for more than nine years at this point. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

It's quite scalable. I'm aware that it's used in other applications as well, not just NICE Actimize. 

Most of the users are in IT support.

I've never reached out to technical support. 

I have not used a different similar solution in the past.

The solution offers a straightforward setup. While I have not done it myself, I'm aware that it's relatively simple. It's been hosted in the cloud in my previous project, and we have experience implementing it on Windows. 

I'd rate the ease of implementation eight out of ten.

I can't say how long it takes to deploy the solution. That's handled by another team. We just have a part of Actimize hosted on that server. That's it.

I do not deal with the pricing. 

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. It's likely close to the latest version.

Apache is well suited, at least for NICE Actimize. I'd recommend the product to others.

Based on the exposure I have, since it's limited to just one application being hosted or using Apache Tomcat, I would rate the solution seven out of ten.