Is eeryone one else being spammed mercilously with German spam to this
list?
YES AND I AM FED UP WITH THOSE SPAMS
Jean Claude MAILHOT
Nexans China
tel : 00 86 21 50462990 ext 601
mob ; 00 86 13901832542
Fax : 00 86 21 50462980
Nexans Shanghai Wires & Cables Co Ltd
N 1, Middle Fute road, Waigaoq
Please unscribe me. Thanks. Kaniz
**
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(B
(B
(B
(B2004/11/08 $B$+$iIT:_$K$7$F$*$j$^$9!#(B2004/11/10 $B$K5"
Hi to all,
It seems we had yesterday a very strange day,
a sort of dream day, but with very constructive
feedback and idea.
I'll have to think at all the proposal, and
prepare a correct answer (my english is still
very ... scolar).
But I agree on merging mod_jk/mod_webapp, ajp14-warp.
Read me
"Christopher Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Something is indeed a little bizarre on the list today, mon ami. Maybe
> because Craig isn't here to keep us in line =)
No, I believe we have to thank Jon for that... I believe that raising
another flame war at this point made us all realize that p
"Gomez Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm ok for that, may be by merging ajp14 and warp (ajp20).
Ok... I can agree with that...
> We could have this protocol implementation in mod_jk
> and mod_webapp :)
Sure do...
> I'm serious here...
Me too...
> - with mod_jk, you'll gain AP1.3/AP2.0
"Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I'm new to the list, but I like to veto things too. Somebody point me
> at something I can veto... :-)
You can always veto your committer status... :) :) :)
Pier
On Monday 10 September 2001 16:15, Christopher Cain wrote:
> Gomez Henri wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > PS: Something goes crasy these days, on tomcat list, what do you think
> > about this Pier (known as my worst enemy :)
>
> Something is indeed a little bizarre on the list today, mon ami. Maybe
> becau
Gomez Henri wrote:
[snip]
> PS: Something goes crasy these days, on tomcat list, what do you think
> about this Pier (known as my worst enemy :)
Something is indeed a little bizarre on the list today, mon ami. Maybe
because Craig isn't here to keep us in line =)
a) There are now four key pe
> I'm actually right now working on the thread locks for Windows, and
> then
> I
> am going to start agitating for an APR release. We should have APR
> 1.0
> out
> the door soon-ish. I am hoping to have it released sometime in the
> next
> month
> or two. :-)
That's the last objection to use
En réponse à [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>
> > "GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Ryan to became more than just a contributer :
> >
> > This is the third time we agree on something in less than 24 hours.
> This
> > implies that either I'm g
On Monday 10 September 2001 15:22, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> "Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> MMAP is the other scary stuff in APR, the new code (without Ralph's
> >> libmm) it no more than one month old... I need it for load balancing,
> >> but I want to double check with the guys in CA
> MMAP is the other scary stuff in APR, the new code (without Ralph's libmm)
> it no more than one month old... I need it for load balancing, but I want
> to double check with the guys in CA next week and see what they tell me
> before publishing anything..
Actually, MMAP has been in APR for a l
On Monday 10 September 2001 14:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> > >> This is the third time we agree on something in less than 24 hours.
> > >> This implies that either I'm getting old, or just plain silly...
> > >
> > > Now, if you could agree on merging
On Monday 10 September 2001 14:05, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> >> "GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Ryan to became more than just a contributer :
> >>
> >> This is the third time we agree o
I just finished merging all the chunked encoding
support for ajp13 into j-t-c and was about to checkin.
I'll hold off until we decide about this:
| Henri - could we undo the ajp13.c changes, for example by copying the
| current ajp13 from j-t and re-doing the autoconf changes ? Having
Keith
If there are issues where I shouldn't
> consider them stable, please let me know so we can
> address them.
>
> Thanks,
> Larry
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: GOMEZ Henri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 4:39 AM
>
GOMEZ Henri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 4:39 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Removal of mod_jk for Apache 2.0 from
> jakarta-tomcat
> f or T omcat 3.3
>
>
> +1
>
> Let me comment at little.
>
> I'm curr
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 23:26
>
> Tomcat 3.2 has *only* happened because Tomcat 4.0 wasn't ready.
>
And I wonder when is it going to be.
That is why I want the 3.3 alternative.
> Remember the history of Tom
Agreed!
Let Costin and the others make their job and then let code talk.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 12:55
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: F
>
>
> Whoever wants to develop on tomcat 4 does so.
> Whoever wants to develop on tomcat 3 does so.
+1
Eventually a winning container will emerge. Forcing people to abandon the
current, production release will not work - they'll just go elsewhere, that
won't help anyone. If everyone concentrates
Well, I am not that good at getting all this flames ( and to be honest I'm
not used to get the "thanks" that I got lately - mostly in private mail -
it looks like a very different world, and an wonderful Christmas gift for
me )
In any case, I'll try to stay away from further arguments - I know no
L PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: Re: F
on 12/21/2000 2:18 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tomcat3.2 is a big step forward versus Tomcat3.1 - but it still have many
> issues - take a look at the ContextManager in 3.3, compa
on 12/21/2000 2:18 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tomcat3.2 is a big step forward versus Tomcat3.1 - but it still have many
> issues - take a look at the ContextManager in 3.3, compare it with 3.2 -
> there are still many undefined behaviors, even code from 3.0.
Tomcat 3.2
> > I just had to deal with a major change in Apache2.0 -
> > it seems some time ago they reorganized the whole
> > tree,
> > moved apr in a different repository, etc. Is this a
> > different architecture ?
>
> Apache 2.0 is not yet OUT in final... Try to go down in HTTP land and
> build a 1.4 on
> >
> > The future of Tomcat 3.3 seems to be outside Apache now.
> > It's really sad.
>
> Sorry, but that's not what I said Henry. Last month I even came up with
> a proposal that got accepted (but never turned to reality) on how to
> handle this situation... But it seems to me, that everyone he
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't mean to sound as though I am a prude, but we do a lot of our
> consulting at customer sites, much of it face-to-face with the customer's
> staff and management. I can control what messages I read and when but I
> cannot control when people are in my office and
I don't mean to sound as though I am a prude, but we do a lot of our
consulting at customer sites, much of it face-to-face with the customer's
staff and management. I can control what messages I read and when but I
cannot control when people are in my office and when the message alert with
the
28 matches
Mail list logo
