Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

"Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As you will note in this case, and in many others, there is no such thing as > the "Sun" viewpoint on many TOMCAT-DEV issues. And that's appropriate -- we > are individuals with our own opinions. I am not going to comment on this as I used to b

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

GOMEZ Henri wrote: >>This cannot be done, as the layering structure of the ASF >>won't "allow" it. >>It can be hosted either in commons, either here (but then it would be >>swallowed by the TC project itself), or as a top level project >>of Jakarta >>(or some other project)... > > > couldn't i

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Bill Barker wrote: > Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 22:16:40 -0700 > From: Bill Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Tomcat Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: MinTC, "terribl

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

> > Now, maybe I'm alone thinking this, but I would be happy if you omitted > stuff like "F**K", "S**T" or anything related from the emails you post on > this list. You probably are. :-) As you can see below, you are also grossly mis-representing what Pier actually wrote (by implying that he vio

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

Remy Maucherat wrote: > > It has been developed separately (by you alone), with > zero input from the Tomcat community > Good grief Remy, it _was_ discussed on tomcat-dev, as a quick search of the archives will show. You're spouting complete BS here, and I wish you wouldn't. You're also obvio

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > But what you are doing is a fork by all definitions that > > I know. > > > > It's an alternative implementation of some of the Catalina > interfaces, but it's clearly not a fork. I'm using this as a > working definition: A fork refers to what you do in a revisio

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

> Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> The only problem I see, is NOT discussing MinTC issues on tomcat-dev - > > I wholeheartedly agree with this. MinTC issues are not discussed around > here, while I would love to follow its development (darn, not enough time?). > > Actually, I do ca

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

Skip ahead to the "" section if you're bored with the other topics in this thread. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > But what you are doing is a fork by all definitions that > I know. > It's an alternative implementation of some of the Catalina interfaces, but it's clearly not a fork. I'm using

RE: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

Christopher, I think a more modular 4.0 would be a step forward - and it seems many others agree. But what you are doing is a fork by all definitions that I know. As I said, I do agree with Remy - if you care about tomcat you should 'persist' in pushing for your ideas and find ways to work

RE: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

>I don't consider me a Tomcat 4.0 "core" committer, but that >patch would have >my biggest +1 on Earth! :) > >Pier (who has a script to remove stuff from TC4's binary distro!) I'm also not a core (not even satelitar) commiter in TC 4 yet, but a lighter TC 4.x will have my +1 and the current

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

Christopher K. St. John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - MinTC is not competition for Tomcat. You would have to be > frigging insane to use MinTC if you could possibly use > Tomcat 4 instead. But sometimes Tomcat 4 is difficult or > impossible to use. That's not because Tomcat 4 is bad, it's >

RE: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The point is not about developing multiple implementations - but about > beeing a part of the community and proposing/discussing changes instead > of posting announcements of a fork's releases. > Costin, My response got to be way too long, so here's just a summar

RE: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

>This cannot be done, as the layering structure of the ASF >won't "allow" it. >It can be hosted either in commons, either here (but then it would be >swallowed by the TC project itself), or as a top level project >of Jakarta >(or some other project)... couldn't it be a tomcat sub project like j

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Rolf Veen wrote: > Remy Maucherat wrote: > > > I will veto this (or vote against, if it's a majority vote). It has been > > very clear for a while that the Tomcat project has to provide one and only > > one servlet container for a particular version of the specifications. >

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I have to admit not having read the MinTC source, however, I thought >> the tomcat community uses/develops multiple implementations of many >> interfaces. Most of the http/socket/auth?/config (xml >> file/ajp-webapp/admin) code is effectively multip

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

GOMEZ Henri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - add MinTC as a tomcat 4 subproject and host here in Apache This cannot be done, as the layering structure of the ASF won't "allow" it. It can be hosted either in commons, either here (but then it would be swallowed by the TC project itself), or as a top

RE: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

> I have to admit not having read the MinTC source, however, I thought > the tomcat community uses/develops multiple implementations of many > interfaces. Most of the http/socket/auth?/config (xml > file/ajp-webapp/admin) code is effectively multiple implementations of > the same interfaces. I

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

I am also interested in MinTC. But I must say I understand Remy's point about 'rudeness'. I don't like bloat and I would love to see more modularization ( in 4.x and 3.x and most of the programs I know ). But this should be done by contributing to the project, not by creating a fork. And if

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

Remy Maucherat wrote: > I will veto this (or vote against, if it's a majority vote). It has been > very clear for a while that the Tomcat project has to provide one and only > one servlet container for a particular version of the specifications. That would have been the best. But right now ther

RE: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

>>> The only problem I see, is NOT discussing MinTC issues on >tomcat-dev - >I wholeheartedly agree with this. MinTC issues are not discussed around >here, while I would love to follow its development (darn, not >enough time?). MinTC is an excellent idea but since it's not an Apache project, s

RE: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

l 2002 13:24 To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence > Another (non-committer) +1 for keeping MinTC on tomcat-dev. > Having a (perhaps limited) web/servlet server in a jar is a great idea. > If Catalina core, migrates to allow this witho

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The only problem I see, is NOT discussing MinTC issues on tomcat-dev - I wholeheartedly agree with this. MinTC issues are not discussed around here, while I would love to follow its development (darn, not enough time?). Actually, I do care _more_ abo

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

> Another (non-committer) +1 for keeping MinTC on tomcat-dev. > Having a (perhaps limited) web/servlet server in a jar is a great idea. > If Catalina core, migrates to allow this without a MinTC, other than a > special server.xml, then that's OK. MinTC will probably have served > it's purpose, and

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 13:37, Craig R. McClanahan wrote: > Even if the consensus is that these things were off topic, one way to > certainly make them on topic would be a discussion of whether you'd want > to propose contributing MinTC to the standard distribution (so that it > could be built from

RE: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

Developers List Subject: Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence Remy Maucherat wrote: > If many people want to see MinTC here, then it will happen even if I may not > like it. +1 to MinTC here. Lets be friendly. And open. [ +1 * notCommiter == 0, I know ] Rolf. -- To unsu

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

Remy Maucherat wrote: > If many people want to see MinTC here, then it will happen even if I may not > like it. +1 to MinTC here. Lets be friendly. And open. [ +1 * notCommiter == 0, I know ] Rolf. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

> I don't known well Tomcat 4 > but I search for a Servlet container which: > - can be used as a component of an application > but does not impose a 'web server' structure > to the application > - is compliant with the latest Servlet standart > (~ is an implementation reference) > - disallow

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

I don't known well Tomcat 4 but I search for a Servlet container which: - can be used as a component of an application but does not impose a 'web server' structure to the application - is compliant with the latest Servlet standart (~ is an implementation reference) - disallows filesystem acc

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

> Personally, I've rather enjoyed following MinTC's progress (OK, not really > following, since I haven't actually looked at the code :). I could see how > someone might think it rude to post the announcement on tomcat-user (since > many people there are easily confused :), but IMHO MinTC is some

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

> I've been informed by private email that I am "terribly > rude" for making announcements of MinTC releases on the > tomcat-dev list, and that I should not make any futher > announcements. Sorry, but I consider it rude to post announcements about other projects on the Tomcat mailing list. I att

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote: > > a discussion of whether you'd want > to propose contributing MinTC to the standard distribution (so that it > could be built from the same source repository, and probably packaged > separately) -- either now or when you get a little further along at > complete suc

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

Personally, I've rather enjoyed following MinTC's progress (OK, not really following, since I haven't actually looked at the code :). I could see how someone might think it rude to post the announcement on tomcat-user (since many people there are easily confused :), but IMHO MinTC is something th

Re: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence

Personally, I don't have any problem with occasional announcements of interesting things related to Tomcat on this list, and MinTC certainly qualifies as "interesting" in my book! As for the community as a whole, consensus usually forms rapidly when the issue is aired publicly on the mailing list