> Yes, We saw many reference of code to be fixed on 3.3. Now that some want to
>
> kill 3.3 and directly play with 4.0, the risk of having a 3.x branch
> (the current branch) falling in 'unsupported software land' is VERY HIGH.
This is open source - it's supported as long as some developers are
>I am working on the 3.x branch for about a year and made clear
>many times
>that I'll continue to work on it for a while. At least until it's the
>fastest and most secure servlet container ( we are close, but
>not there ).
>
>I see there is a lot of interest in killing 3.x and making it
>"EOL"
> I think the Resources stuff are at the right spot in the architecture :
> hidden behind the ServletContext, so that the data they abstract is
> availible to any servlet.
The Resource stuff is fine ( I would liked a JNDI Context more as an
abstraction, but it's just my taste, I like Resource too
>> 1) Release Tomcat 3.2 final (soon, please!)
>
+1
It will help at least to reduce the questions on TOMCAT 3.1 which
many users think the stable release.
2) Create a new proposal tree alongside with Catalina (new
>name to avoid
>>confusion, please)
-1, yes it will be hard to follow 3 tre
> > - If it was possible to avoid code duplication for as many components as
> > possible it would be great ;) Fixes / improvements are really hard to
merge
> > otherwise. Since I think the main point of disagreement is the servlet
> > engine core, that should be doable.
>
> That's what I think to
> > Servlet2.0 -> Tocmat3.3
> > Servlet2.1 -> Tomcat3.3
> > Servlet2.2 -> Tomcat3.3
> > Servlet2.3 -> Tomcat3.3
> > Servlet.next -> Tomcat3.3
>
> I don't agree.
> Having :
> Servlet2.0 -> TocmatNext
> Servlet2.1 -> TomcatNext
> Servlet2.2 -> TomcatNext
> Servlet2.3 -> TomcatNext
> Servlet.next ->
>> > - I start a new revolution in tomcat3.2 space ( proposals/something
>> > ), and all the implementation of 2.3 and all controversial stuff
>> > will go there ( i.e. all new features, like dav, http1.1, resource
>> > caching, the new SMTP and POP3 protocols - since any feature will be
>> > in f
> > - I start a new revolution in tomcat3.2 space ( proposals/something ),
> > and all the implementation of 2.3 and all controversial stuff will go
> > there ( i.e. all new features, like dav, http1.1, resource caching, the
> > new SMTP and POP3 protocols - since any feature will be in fact just
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What about this:
>
> - I start a new revolution in tomcat3.2 space ( proposals/something ),
> and all the implementation of 2.3 and all controversial stuff will go
> there ( i.e. all new features, like dav, http1.1, resource caching, the
> new SMTP and POP3 protocols -
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: Tomcat 3.3 / 4.0 confusion, rant and plan...
> And why not:
>
> Servlet2.0 -> Tocmat3.3
> Servlet2.1 -> Tomcat3.3
> Ser
Pier P. Fumagalli wrote:
>
> If you want to go on and make a 3.3, do it, but if you want to
> implement Servlet 2.3 in that release, you'll get my -1...
Whether I personally agree with 3.x design or not, as an ASF member myself,
I believe that it is important to protect Costin's right to pursue i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> What about this:
>
> - I start a new revolution in tomcat3.2 space ( proposals/something ),
> and all the implementation of 2.3 and all controversial stuff will go
> there ( i.e. all new features, like dav, http1.1, resource caching, the
> new SMTP and POP3 protocols
"Pier P. Fumagalli" wrote:
>
> Hans Bergsten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Pier P. Fumagalli" wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry for starting what it might end up as a long flamewar, but reading
> >> almost 500 emails on the list I ended up a little confused... Also, in a
> >> bunch of side discussions,
> Servlet 2.0? Apache JServ (Actually, we might end up moving it to Jakarta as
> an "historic" piece of code when Java.Apache.ORG dies)
>
> Servlet 2.1? (fuck, we don't have it, any volunteer?)
>
> Servlet 2.2/JSP 1.1? Tomcat 3.x (3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and so on, as long as
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What about this:
>
> - I start a new revolution in tomcat3.2 space ( proposals/something ),
> and all the implementation of 2.3 and all controversial stuff will go
> there ( i.e. all new features, like dav, http1.1, resource caching, the
> new SMT
> Costin, would you consider bringing your brains into the 4.0 tree?
> Is 3.3 that good that it should weigh in _against_ (as a competeing
> implementation) 4.0?
I think it is that good. Almost all the projects I am interested in doing
requires a 3.3-like design ( and working on a servlet conta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> time explaining to people, "Well, 3.x is sort of this unfinished thing that
>> they weren't happy with, so they started 4.x". To me, that DOES give the
>
> 3.x and 4.x are 2 different servlet containers, with very different
> design. The only conf
Hans Bergsten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Pier P. Fumagalli" wrote:
>>
>> Sorry for starting what it might end up as a long flamewar, but reading
>> almost 500 emails on the list I ended up a little confused... Also, in a
>> bunch of side discussions, but related always to the same topic, I fe
What about this:
- I start a new revolution in tomcat3.2 space ( proposals/something ),
and all the implementation of 2.3 and all controversial stuff will go
there ( i.e. all new features, like dav, http1.1, resource caching, the
new SMTP and POP3 protocols - since any feature will be in fact ju
The problem of the division of finite resources remains.
Costin, would you consider bringing your brains into the 4.0 tree? Is 3.3
that good that it should weigh in _against_ (as a competeing
implementation) 4.0? Pier, Craig, have you done all you can to get Costin
"on-board" with 4.0?
I just f
Michael Percy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Costin is an avid developer devoted to this project and technology, and you
> are fools to lose him and fork the project.
Costin is a great guy, I have nothing personal against him... I was so happy
when he got his green card last week because I consid
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
>
>> Are you saying what I hope you're saying, that you're stepping in
>> as release manager for 3.2 to make sure it gets released quickly?
>
>I don't care who does the actual release (I will if Sam can't and
>everyone else is OK with that), but I want to stop having to
Costin is an avid developer devoted to this project and technology, and you
are fools to lose him and fork the project. I think it is possible that many
contributors (present and potential future) will follow him. He is one of
the few major contributors not employed by Sun. I don't see why there c
> So far it seems everyone is certain about how bad 3.3 is and how good 4.0
> is, and you may be right - but I do hope that you spent the required time
> to understand both.
What would benifit everyone the most is the fastest, most reliable,
feature-rich (past the specs) container/jsp engine out
That's a very interesting discussion, I certainly learned a lot from it.
So, tomcat3.3 is confusing and shouldn't be called tomcat because catalina
is tomcat. And while tomcat3.2 was ok, and nobody complained that the
performance increased several times and a lot of features were added, for
tom
Everyone wants a TC3.2 -- I believe the only major concerns over the past
couple weeks have been expressed in this snippet from a week ago:
- snip -
> It seemed that the last outstanding issue was the compilation under JDK
> 1.1, but that should be fixed now. So is there still som
Some non-committer 2c here from me. Both of these things...
>From Nick:
> 1) The fact that there are smart software developers out there
> contributing to Tomcat 3.x codebase and not necessarily contributing to
> the 4.0 codebase is a failure of the Jakarta Apache community to obtain
> sufficie
>> I believe development on the 3.x tree MUST continue, until Tomcat 3.x
>> truly IS the RI of Servlet 2.2. Anything else would not make sense.
>> The numbering (3.2, 3.3) does not matter.
>>
>
> You will find that the 3.3 tree is pretty nearly as big an
> architectural change (from 3.2) as is 4
Hans Bergsten wrote:
> "Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
> > [...]
> > Therefore, I'm going to spend the weekend integrating all the bug reports and
> > fixes I can find into 3.2 -- please check the CVS commit reports and remind me
> > of any that I miss. In particular, I would like people to check o
"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
> [...]
> Therefore, I'm going to spend the weekend integrating all the bug reports and
> fixes I can find into 3.2 -- please check the CVS commit reports and remind me
> of any that I miss. In particular, I would like people to check out the
> changes to MOD_JSERV an
"Pier P. Fumagalli" wrote:
>
> Sorry for starting what it might end up as a long flamewar, but reading
> almost 500 emails on the list I ended up a little confused... Also, in a
> bunch of side discussions, but related always to the same topic, I feel
> there's something wrong going around here..
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Pier P. Fumagalli wrote:
> Sorry for starting what it might end up as a long flamewar, but reading
> almost 500 emails on the list I ended up a little confused... Also, in a
> bunch of side discussions, but related always to the same topic, I feel
> there's something wrong go
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [snip]
> I believe development on the 3.x tree MUST continue, until Tomcat
> 3.x truly IS the RI of Servlet 2.2. Anything else would not make sense.
> The numbering (3.2, 3.3) does not matter.
>
You will find that the 3.3 tree is pretty nearly as big an architectural
Everyone,
I see no reason why Tomcat 3.x and 4.x have to be mutually exclusive. As
far as I can tell, Tomcat 3.x is Servlet 2.2, and Tomcat 4.x is Servlet
2.3. It's as simple as that. Yes, the vote did happen. You now have
Tomcat 4.x, and that is what I am using, and it is awesome! Craig
I'd like to speak up about this briefly.
Catalina/Tomcat-4.0 may be the future which is fine, but Tomcat is now
being used in production settings. We've been testing the 3.2b* releases
and the performance is better than 3.1 which is important for us. The
performance of 3.3 is supposed to be bet
So what are our goals, anyhow ?
I think we should concentrate on the following goals (in this order):
1) Provide a quality RI of Servlet 2.2/JSP 1.1. This is something that
Tomcat 3.0 claimed to be, but until now we are still not quite sure !
2) Provide a production quality implementation of Ser
> time explaining to people, "Well, 3.x is sort of this unfinished thing that
> they weren't happy with, so they started 4.x". To me, that DOES give the
3.x and 4.x are 2 different servlet containers, with very different
design. The only confusing thing is the fact that the same name is used
for
Sorry Pier, but I don't think I'm doing anything wrong.
I worked ( pretty hard ) on the last year or so on tomcat. I worked (
pretty hard ) convincing other people to contribute.
Tomcat 3.1 is better that tomcat 3.0 ( or the old JWSDK ). Tomcat 3.2 ( as
it was few months ago ) is better than t
> "I've never seen Tomcat before" being faced with two downloads, which one
> would you grab, seeing 3.1, 3.2b6 and 4.0M4 available?
"being faced with two downloads, which of these three would you grab?"
I think next time I won't get up at 6 am =)
> I think Jakarta should provide a "quality" RI
> Sorry again, but this time I have to vote -1 on a "new" Tomcat 3.3,
> expecially before 3.2 final is out of the door. The NEXT major release is
> going to be Tomcat 4.0, based on Catalina, as we all agreed on months ago.
The impression I got from reading the dev list was that 4.x was where
ever
>For what concerns me, Tomcat 3.3 doesn't exist as an Apache Project. It
>was
>not voted upon, and it is in direct contrast with what this community
>decided.rg
I'm probably wrong, but I don't remember a vote that said Tomcat 3.2 was
a new development over Tomcat 3.1. I thought it was clear tha
"Pier P. Fumagalli" wrote:
>
> So, I'm proposing this plan, and please vote on 2 and 4 (1 and 3 were
> already voted upon with a bunch of +1s)...
>
> 1) Release Tomcat 3.2 final (soon, please!)
+1
> 2) Create a new proposal tree alongside with Catalina (new name to avoid
>confusion, plea
"Pier P. Fumagalli" wrote:
> > What is the status of the Tomcat 4.0 web connector for apache (if any)?
> ARRGGH :) :) :) :) You know how to make me suffer... A beta
> will be available soon
hahahaha :)
Well is there any way I can help? Although slightly new to java Ive been
p
Luke Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What is the status of the Tomcat 4.0 web connector for apache (if any)?
ARRGGH :) :) :) :) You know how to make me suffer... A beta
will be available soon
Pier
--
What is the status of the Tomcat 4.0 web connector for apache (if any)?
Also, I would be VERY interested in helping this community with the
development of tomcat (and any other related project).
Thanks :)
--
Luke
-
To unsubsc
Liam Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have been a long-time silent listener on this list, and use Tomcat 3.1 in
> a production environment. I have been greatly appreciative of the hard work
> gone into the software to date, and respect that its development is on a
> volunteer basis. But I f
I have been a long-time silent listener on this list, and use Tomcat 3.1 in
a production environment. I have been greatly appreciative of the hard work
gone into the software to date, and respect that its development is on a
volunteer basis. But I fully concur with the sentiments of this posting -
Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pier P. Fumagalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> So, I'm proposing this plan, and please vote on 2 and 4 (1 and 3 were
>> already voted upon with a bunch of +1s)...
>>
>> 1) Release Tomcat 3.2 final (soon, please!)
>
> +1.
>
>> 2) Create a new propo
> Sorry for starting what it might end up as a long flamewar, but reading
> almost 500 emails on the list I ended up a little confused... Also, in a
> bunch of side discussions, but related always to the same topic, I feel
> there's something wrong going around here...
>
> Question: WHAT THE HACK
49 matches
Mail list logo
