Re: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-10-02 Thread Jan Luehe
Hans/Remy, I don't know more than you do about when J2EE 1.4 will be released, but the specs are starting to move through final approval now, so I'm pretty sure it will happen in a month or two. Three months for running a few Beta releases instead of releasing it as something it's not doesn't seem

Re: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-10-02 Thread Remy Maucherat
Reshat Sabiq wrote: My bad. I meant 4.1.1, and 4.1.2 (i've used 4.1.8, 4.1.9, 4.1.12, and 4.1.24). How do i submit a test war to tester or watchdog (i only know Bugzilla). No, if you have a test case, submit it in BZ. The tester and watchdog are the test suites we use. Remy -

Re: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-10-01 Thread Reshat Sabiq
Remy Maucherat wrote: Reshat Sabiq wrote: I'm a newbie on this list, but i think 2.4/2.0 draft 3 5.0.14 is a good idea. At least it's more specific than Beta. P.S. Btw, as far as bugs i couldn't use custom error pages in Sun's 1.4 Beta 2 (Tomcat 5). Reported to Sun, and they forwarded

Re: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-10-01 Thread Remy Maucherat
Dave Oxley wrote: Why don't you keep TC5.0 in beta and branch and start work on TC5.1? The thing is, I don't have brilliant new features ideas, sorry to disappoint :-( I do have *some* which are relatively useful, but nearly all are modules, and can be done independently of the core (ie, there'

Re: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-10-01 Thread Dave Oxley
Why don't you keep TC5.0 in beta and branch and start work on TC5.1? Dave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-10-01 Thread Jean-Francois Arcand
Bill Barker wrote: By the way, is there any plan to certify Tomcat 5? As everyone knows, Sun controls the RI now. While it's rumored to be based on Tomcat code, that's not the same thing. Also, as everyone knows, Geronimo is planning to test the Sun/Apache agreement by getting the test-suite

Re: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-10-01 Thread Remy Maucherat
Reshat Sabiq wrote: I'm a newbie on this list, but i think 2.4/2.0 draft 3 5.0.14 is a good idea. At least it's more specific than Beta. P.S. Btw, as far as bugs i couldn't use custom error pages in Sun's 1.4 Beta 2 (Tomcat 5). Reported to Sun, and they forwarded me to Apache, and i didn

Re: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-10-01 Thread Remy Maucherat
Bill Barker wrote: Bill Barker wrote: Great. You give just about the only person on the project that's not in the PMC the job ;-). I'll do my best. Come on, don't let small details stop you (and it's easy to do a vote on the PMC list anyway) ;-) BTW, small glitch: can you actually get the test

Re: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-10-01 Thread Bill Barker
- Original Message - From: "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 12:05 AM Subject: Re: [5.0] Schedule change > Bill Barker wrote: > > By the way, is there any pla

Re: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-10-01 Thread Remy Maucherat
Bill Barker wrote: By the way, is there any plan to certify Tomcat 5? As everyone knows, Sun controls the RI now. While it's rumored to be based on Tomcat code, that's not the same thing. Also, as everyone knows, Geronimo is planning to test the Sun/Apache agreement by getting the test-suite und

Re: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-09-30 Thread Bill Barker
By the way, is there any plan to certify Tomcat 5? As everyone knows, Sun controls the RI now. While it's rumored to be based on Tomcat code, that's not the same thing. Also, as everyone knows, Geronimo is planning to test the Sun/Apache agreement by getting the test-suite under the Sun/Apache a

Re: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-09-30 Thread Reshat Sabiq
3/1.2 4.1.27 2.2/1.1 3.3.1a Chad Johnson Web Services Developer WS Packaging Group, Inc. -Original Message- From: Remy Maucherat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 1:28 PM To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: [5.0] Schedule change Hi, The signals I

RE: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-09-30 Thread Chad Johnson
Group, Inc. -Original Message- From: Remy Maucherat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 1:28 PM To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: [5.0] Schedule change Hi, The signals I'm getting from Sun about the schedule of the specifications is highly confusing.

Re: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-09-30 Thread Remy Maucherat
Hans Bergsten wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: If the first option is chosen, I will go work on other stuff (at JBoss) while the project stays idle (chômage technique, as we say in French). As you all know: no stable release = no testers = no bugs = nothing to fix :-( I'm pretty sure that if you rel

Re: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-09-30 Thread Hans Bergsten
Remy Maucherat wrote: Bill Barker wrote: [...] people want most from Tomcat 5 is a Servlet 2.4/JSP 2.0 container. There are only bad solutions here: - wait for an unspecified, and possibly long, amount of time, sitting on a finished product - backport patches (we probably don't have the resource

Re: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-09-30 Thread Remy Maucherat
Glenn Nielsen wrote: How much work is it to revert Tomcat 5 back to Sevlet 2.3/JSP 1.2? If you want to really remove the features, I think it's significant. Remy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional comman

Re: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-09-30 Thread Glenn Nielsen
Remy Maucherat wrote: Hi, The signals I'm getting from Sun about the schedule of the specifications is highly confusing. Since I'm tired of having Tomcat depend on these, I propose taking advantage of the backwards compatibility of the spec, and replacing the TC 5 statement phrase with: The

Re: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-09-30 Thread Remy Maucherat
Bill Barker wrote: You can be a Servlet 2.3 container, or you can be a Servlet 2.4 container, but not both (see for example, BZ #23525). I agree with Yoav that what Well, Sun is claiming full compatibility, so I'm assuming it's fully compatible :) people want most from Tomcat 5 is a Servlet 2.4/

Re: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-09-30 Thread Bill Barker
- Original Message - From: "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 11:27 AM Subject: [5.0] Schedule change > Hi, > > The signals I'm getting from Sun about

Re: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-09-30 Thread Costin Manolache
Remy Maucherat wrote: > Hi, > > The signals I'm getting from Sun about the schedule of the > specifications is highly confusing. Since I'm tired of having Tomcat > depend on these, I propose taking advantage of the backwards > compatibility of the spec, and replacing the TC 5 statement phrase wit

Re: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-09-30 Thread Tim Funk
+1 It may be better to get an official release out sooner than later. In a worst case where the spec is "changed" from what is expected, tomcat 5.2 could address that. -Tim Remy Maucherat wrote: Hi, The signals I'm getting from Sun about the schedule of the specifications is highly confusing

RE: [5.0] Schedule change

2003-09-30 Thread Shapira, Yoav
ginal Message- >From: Remy Maucherat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 2:28 PM >To: Tomcat Developers List >Subject: [5.0] Schedule change > >Hi, > >The signals I'm getting from Sun about the schedule of the >specifications is highly confusing

[5.0] Schedule change

2003-09-30 Thread Remy Maucherat
Hi, The signals I'm getting from Sun about the schedule of the specifications is highly confusing. Since I'm tired of having Tomcat depend on these, I propose taking advantage of the backwards compatibility of the spec, and replacing the TC 5 statement phrase with: The 5.x releases implement t