Re: Minimal HOWTO for jk2 2.0.4 - Was: [Fwd: Releasing JK 2.0.4]

t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 9:53 PM Subject: Re: Re: Minimal HOWTO for jk2 2.0.4 - Was: [Fwd: Releasing JK 2.0.4] --- Guenter Knauf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <> I would like to see some feedback from those admins who have to inst

Re: Re: Minimal HOWTO for jk2 2.0.4 - Was: [Fwd: Releasing JK 2.0.4]

way people who have suggestions for documentation can just add it? Do WIKIs exist in the ASF? Tim - Original Message - From: "Daniel Savard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 9:53 PM Subject: Re: Re: Minimal HOWTO for

Re: Re: Minimal HOWTO for jk2 2.0.4 - Was: [Fwd: Releasing JK 2.0.4]

>--- Guenter Knauf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ><> >>I would like to see some >> feedback from those admins who have to install the connectors what >they would >> prefer. > >A quick start covering: >- What to download >- What to compile >- Compatible Apache versions >- Which folder to copy files int

Re: Minimal HOWTO for jk2 2.0.4 - proposal

Hi Kurt, >> hmm, since we have fixed recently the hooks it shouldnt matter anymore >> where you load mod_jk2; > D'oh!. ;-) Out of habbit I always do the LoadModule in the DSO section, > but you're right it shouldn't matter. in theory what really happens will tell us BugZilla after we have 2.0.

Re: Minimal HOWTO for jk2 2.0.4 - proposal

ic about that. > hmm, since we have fixed recently the hooks it shouldnt matter anymore where you > load mod_jk2; D'oh!. ;-) Out of habbit I always do the LoadModule in the DSO section, but. you're right it shouldn't matter. > here's the rest od my minimal config,

Re: Minimal HOWTO for jk2 2.0.4 - proposal

f > and modules. right, that's missing; will add soon. > I'd like to see the mod_jk2.conf. At what location in httpd.conf should it > be included? You probably want to be specific about that. hmm, since we have fixed recently the hooks it shouldnt matter anymore where you load mod_

Re: Minimal HOWTO for jk2 2.0.4 - proposal

From: "Guenter Knauf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hi, > Here are the HOWTOs I use for binary distributions: > > > NetWare: > > This is a binary package of mod_jk2. If you have > installed Apache2 to the default location /Apache2 then > simp

Re: Minimal HOWTO for jk2 2.0.4 - proposal

Hi, > How did users see documentation in tomcat-docs ? after this simple setup you are at once able to browse the tomcat-docs through the connector; see Mladen's minimal wokers2.properties file... Guenter. - To uns

Re: Minimal HOWTO for jk2 2.0.4 - proposal

Guenter Knauf wrote: Hi, Here are the HOWTOs I use for binary distributions: NetWare: This is a binary package of mod_jk2. If you have installed Apache2 to the default location /Apache2 then simply extract this archive directly to the

Minimal HOWTO for jk2 2.0.4 - proposal

Hi, Here are the HOWTOs I use for binary distributions: NetWare: This is a binary package of mod_jk2. If you have installed Apache2 to the default location /Apache2 then simply extract this archive directly to the root of your volu

Re: Minimal HOWTO for jk2 2.0.4 - Was: [Fwd: Releasing JK 2.0.4]

--- Guenter Knauf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <> >I would like to see some > feedback from those admins who have to install the connectors what they would > prefer. A quick start covering: - What to download - What to compile - Compatible Apache versions - Which folder to copy files into - What en

Re: Minimal HOWTO for jk2 2.0.4 - Was: [Fwd: Releasing JK 2.0.4]

Hi all, probably now I get the -1's back, but nevertheless I'll give it a try...! > Did some of you, JFC, Mladen, Guenter, Kurt, Norm could works on > a little HOWTO (text based will be suffisant) for jk2, explaining > how to set up jk2 in IIS and Apache 2 web-servers ? > It could be added to the

Re: Minimal HOWTO for jk2 2.0.4 - Was: [Fwd: Releasing JK 2.0.4]

Mladen Turk wrote: -Original Message- From: Henri Gomez Did some of you, JFC, Mladen, Guenter, Kurt, Norm could works on a little HOWTO (text based will be suffisant) for jk2, explaining how to set up jk2 in IIS and Apache 2 web-servers ? It could be added to the release and will he

RE: Minimal HOWTO for jk2 2.0.4 - Was: [Fwd: Releasing JK 2.0.4]

> -Original Message- > From: Henri Gomez > > Did some of you, JFC, Mladen, Guenter, Kurt, Norm could works > on a little HOWTO (text based will be suffisant) for jk2, > explaining how to set up jk2 in IIS and Apache 2 web-servers ? > > It could be added to the release and will help r

Minimal HOWTO for jk2 2.0.4 - Was: [Fwd: Releasing JK 2.0.4]

Hi to all, Did some of you, JFC, Mladen, Guenter, Kurt, Norm could works on a little HOWTO (text based will be suffisant) for jk2, explaining how to set up jk2 in IIS and Apache 2 web-servers ? It could be added to the release and will help remove tons of questions from tomcat-users :) Volunteers

RE: Minimal server.xml

Tomcat Developers List >Subject: Re: Minimal server.xml > >On logging: > >The suggested server-minimal.xml does only contain a Logging-tag that >makes no use of the special features (thus only logging to catalina.out, >making the tag redundant, nicht Wahr?). > >To compens

Re: Minimal server.xml

ut I think they should be elsewhere than in the production config file. This does sound like vallid points. However, we would have to add an AJP connector to the mix so that the "minimal" config is out of the box compatible with the current default

Re: Minimal server.xml

vallid points. However, we would have to add an AJP connector to the mix so that the "minimal" config is out of the box compatible with the current default config. Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. We would need a realm as well. Most probably: without one it will be hard for the be

Re: Minimal server.xml

luttered with all those examples they already understand. > > > > So examples are great, but I think they should be elsewhere than in the > > production config file. > > This does sound like vallid points. > > However, we would have to add an AJP connector to the mix so

Re: Minimal server.xml

those examples they already understand. So examples are great, but I think they should be elsewhere than in the production config file. This does sound like vallid points. However, we would have to add an AJP connector to the mix so that the "minimal" config is out of the box compatible wi

Re: Minimal server.xml

cois Shapira, Yoav wrote: Hi, IMHO the server.xml that comes with tomcat by default ($CATALINA_HOME/conf/server.xml) is nice in that it provides many comments and examples. But I think power users would appreciate a minimal version as well, so I've created one, as shown below. Should

Re: Minimal server.xml

and examples. But I think power users would appreciate a minimal version as well, so I've created one, as shown below. Should we distribute something like this, perhaps as $CATALINA_HOME/conf/server-minimal.xml? maxThreads="150" minSpareThreads="1" max

Re: Minimal server.xml

is nice in that it provides many > comments and examples. But I think power users would appreciate a > minimal version as well, so I've created one, as shown below. Should we > distribute something like this, perhaps as > $CATALINA_HOME/conf/server-minimal.xml? > >

Minimal server.xml

Hi, IMHO the server.xml that comes with tomcat by default ($CATALINA_HOME/conf/server.xml) is nice in that it provides many comments and examples. But I think power users would appreciate a minimal version as well, so I've created one, as shown below. Should we distribute something like

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

he vote doesn't change any of the arguments and opinions that were expressed about profiles and minimal. IMO we are very close to consensus on "profiles", and I think we can rich a consensus on an "embeded". I think we should just change the subject line - and have another vote

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Costin Manolache wrote: Bill Barker wrote: I think we should just change the subject line - and have another vote to make sure we're all on the same page. Sure, go ahead :) Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

t change any of the arguments and opinions that were expressed about profiles and minimal. IMO we are very close to consensus on "profiles", and I think we can rich a consensus on an "embeded". I think we should just change the subject line - and have another vote to make

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

ng that people said sucks so badly and is such a terrible idea, it has worked very well for quite a while now. =) The same will be true for my minimal distribution idea. This is not getting anywhere. Actually, what you want is not a distribution for end users, but rather a distribution for peopl

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Bill Barker wrote: Urm, err, the users that can't read may include you ;-). Jon withdrew the vote above. This means that this is officially 'not getting anywhere', at least until Jon re-submits his re-worked proposal. I know (and I can usually read, thanks), but since he's going to resubmit it

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

- Original Message - From: "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 12:38 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution > Jon Scott Stevens wrote: > > on 20

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

badly and is such a terrible idea, it has worked very well for quite a while now. =) The same will be true for my minimal distribution idea. This is not getting anywhere. Actually, what you want is not a distribution for end users, but rather a distribution for people embedding Tomcat (like,

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

dly and is such a terrible idea, it has worked very well for quite a while now. =) The same will be true for my minimal distribution idea. -jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

On 12/12/02 1:06 "Glenn Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Looking at the original vote I realize that what you ask can't be done. > Tomcat 4 is the RI of Servlet 2.3, JSR 154 is for Servlet 2.4. So it > isn't possible to create a JSR 154 only dist of Tomcat 4. It is _NOT_... Tomcat is the se

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Jon Scott Stevens wrote: on 2002/12/11 1:36 PM, "Amy Roh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I vote for one distribution with options to disable whatever you don't want. Simple yet everyone gets only what they want. Amy The vote was: Create a separate minimal JSR 154 only d

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Create a separate minimal JSR 154 only distribution of Tomcat 4.x: +1 [ ] 0 [ ] -1 [x] [I will quickly change to a +1 if the minimal change I suggest is made. Others prob. will as well] Explanation: Beginners want ease of use over minimality because they want to get started. They can&#

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

on 2002/12/11 1:36 PM, "Amy Roh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I vote for one > distribution with options to disable whatever you don't want. Simple yet > everyone gets only what they want. > > Amy The vote was: Create a separate minimal JSR 154 only

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

ly what they want. > > > I'm a newb here, but it seems to me the fundamental issue > is how difficult is it to add or subtract bits and pieces. > > If it was trivial (i.e. a simple unzipping or untarring) > then the best thing to offer for download would be: > 1 a min

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

various aspects. I'm willing to change my vote to +1 if the proposal is changed to "minimal tomcat distribution" ( i.e. don't explicitely exclude JSP ). That may mean only jasper-runtime.jar, or not even that ( if placing it in WEB-INF still works ). Changing the name t

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

it seems to me the fundamental issue is how difficult is it to add or subtract bits and pieces. If it was trivial (i.e. a simple unzipping or untarring) then the best thing to offer for download would be: 1 a minimal 2. a 'maximal' and all the modules in between for people to roll their own

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Bill Barker wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 12:05 AM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribu

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

- Original Message - From: "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 12:05 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution > Glenn Nielsen wrote: > > Jon Scot

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

ures that I like in 3.3). I don't know about what consensus we reached :-) Bill - the "minimal" profile ( my original proposal ) is almost the same thing as the 154-only. The big difference is that it keeps the door open to add jasper-related runtime. Having a small download with the

RE: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Howdy, As this is hopefully nearing a wrap-up vote... >> Right. You need a distribution tailored for your use. Others may have >> slightly different dists they need. Where does it stop? Would we end up >> with 2-3 dozen different distributions? Tomcat can be used in so many >> different ways th

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

> > The real issue with Jon's proposal is not the fact that admin ( or > any jsp ) won't run in the JSR154 distribution. It's more an issue > of attitude. Yes, Jon can be annoying (and he is the second best person that I've seen at punching Costin's buttons ;-). However, this is about a concept,

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

I want one small download that I can point people at and tell them to copy their scarab.war into. It should be a download which only contains code and data that Scarab requires (which is a minimal JSR 154 container). -jon Right. You need a distribution tailored for your use. Others may have sl

Re: FW: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Jon Scott Stevens wrote: I'm going to repost this message once again because it seems Remy and Costin didn't bother reading it the first time and are now essentially agreeing to what I suggested below. What-EVER! Lol. Actually, you are proposing releasing multiple binaries because you don't wa

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

probably you can easily get the current one to work, if it doesn't already ) run jasper generated ( pre-compiled ) servlets with any servlet container ( weblogic, whatever ) - as long as the container doesn't include an older version of jasper ( that would mess the class loader). The r

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

on 2002/12/10 4:59 PM, "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes - your admin tool argument doesn't make sense. You can easily precompile the admintool ( and we should do it anyway ) and run it in the JSR154-only container - if you want to. >>> >>> I thought that you need J

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Costin Manolache wrote: Jeanfrancois Arcand wrote: Jon Scott Stevens wrote: on 2002/12/10 3:15 PM, "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes - your admin tool argument doesn't make sense. You can easily precompile the admintool ( and we should do it anyway ) and run

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Jeanfrancois Arcand wrote: > > > Jon Scott Stevens wrote: > >>on 2002/12/10 3:15 PM, "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >>>Yes - your admin tool argument doesn't make sense. You can easily >>>precompile the admintool ( and we should do it anyway ) and >>>run it in the JSR1

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

on 2002/12/10 4:23 PM, "Glenn Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Right. You need a distribution tailored for your use. Others may have > slightly different dists they need. Where does it stop? Would we end up > with 2-3 dozen different distributions? Tomcat can be used in so many > different

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

>>> Yes - your admin tool argument doesn't make sense. You can easily >>> precompile the admintool ( and we should do it anyway ) and >>> run it in the JSR154-only container - if you want to. >> >> I thought that you need Jasper in order to run JSP's (compiled or not). >> > Yes, you need them sin

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

nload that I can point people at and tell them to copy their scarab.war into. It should be a download which only contains code and data that Scarab requires (which is a minimal JSR 154 container). -jon Right. You need a distribution tailored for your use. Others may have slightly different dists

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Jon Scott Stevens wrote: on 2002/12/10 3:15 PM, "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes - your admin tool argument doesn't make sense. You can easily precompile the admintool ( and we should do it anyway ) and run it in the JSR154-only container - if you want to. I thought t

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

on 2002/12/10 3:15 PM, "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes - your admin tool argument doesn't make sense. You can easily > precompile the admintool ( and we should do it anyway ) and > run it in the JSR154-only container - if you want to. I thought that you need Jasper in order to

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

eople at and tell them to copy their scarab.war into. It should be a download which only contains code and data that Scarab requires (which is a minimal JSR 154 container). -jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

to activate/include modules, which is the Costin idea ;) Actually - I think it is your idea :-) ( well, now it makes a lot of sense - I'm in "how didn't I think of it" mode ). That means I will drop my minimal proposal, or at least rewrite it to be one "profile&qu

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

r - if you want to. And I don't think including it in the minimal is a good idea either ( if it can run without it, then it shouldn't be in "minimal" ). The vote was about creating a separate distribution of tomcat with certain content. You can vote +1 or -1 if you want to influe

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

on 2002/12/10 2:52 PM, "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What Remy and Costin are agreeing on is one tomcat release that includes > multiple profiles - so people can run "jsr154" or "minimal" or "default" > or "all".

Re: FW: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

y favorite activity - for this one I stoped at the first phrase ( "a tree of downloads" ). What Remy and Costin are agreeing on is one tomcat release that includes multiple profiles - so people can run "jsr154" or "minimal" or "default" or "all".

FW: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

omcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 01:16:20 -0800 To: tomcat-dev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution What I would love to see is a tree of downloads where each one gains more and more features (it is additiv

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Costin Manolache wrote: Henri Gomez wrote: Yes but add the ability to activate/include modules, which is the Costin idea ;) Actually - I think it is your idea :-) ( well, now it makes a lot of sense - I'm in "how didn't I think of it" mode ). That means I will drop

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Jon Scott Stevens wrote: > on 2002/12/10 7:30 AM, "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Yes - Jon will not be happy ( as far as I know Jon ) if jasper.jar >> is anywhere in the distribution, even if it is not used. > > If Jasper is in ther

Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )

it the config files (server.xml or >> whatever) to remove the options I don't need. Exactly like httpd (sort >> of)... > > I really cannot believe I could agree with you on something ;-) Don't know what you two disagree on - but I think this is a very good point. Consi

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Henri Gomez wrote: > Yes but add the ability to activate/include modules, which is > the Costin idea ;) Actually - I think it is your idea :-) ( well, now it makes a lot of sense - I'm in "how didn't I think of it" mode ). That means I will drop my minimal proposal,

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

on 2002/12/10 7:30 AM, "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes - Jon will not be happy ( as far as I know Jon ) if jasper.jar > is anywhere in the distribution, even if it is not used. If Jasper is in there, then it isn't a (repeat) 'minimal J

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

on 2002/12/10 2:36 AM, "Henri Gomez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes but add the ability to activate/include modules, which is > the Costin idea ;) Nope...Read my message with the ascii chart in it... -jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail

Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )

n the code that you done outside of tomcat. Do you still think it was ok to do so ? You can check with the board or whoever else in apache about that - or try to release an "apache httpd - high-availability". There are many proposals for "minimal" tomcat - and one of the main

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Henri Gomez wrote: > The idea being to provide a minimal tomcat binary and > many external modules which will be linked at runtime if > present, Apache 2.0 does it that way, why could we do the > same. Another solution can be seen in jboss. They do pack all the components ( or almost

RE: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )

> -Original Message- > From: Remy Maucherat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 10 December 2002 10:55 > To: Tomcat Developers List > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 ) > > I really cannot believe I could agree with you on something ;-) >

Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )

Martin Algesten wrote: This is the soundest idea I've heard so far. Multiple distributions sounds like disaster area to me. I currently think it is hard enough for a new user to decide Tomcat3/Tomcat4.x/Tomcat5 when presented with the choices. If there in addition to that is "Tomcat4 lite", "Tomca

RE: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )

; -Original Message- > From: Henri Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 10 December 2002 10:35 > To: Tomcat Developers List > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 ) > > It's exactly what SHOULD BE DONE in a modular approach of TC 5. > > A sma

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Jon Scott Stevens wrote: on 2002/12/10 12:49 AM, "Henri Gomez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Who will be the release managers for the 'alternative distributions', may be Jon is candidate ? I already volunteered to manage the distribution that I propose. I have been doing distributions of ser

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Jon Scott Stevens wrote: on 2002/12/10 12:53 AM, "Henri Gomez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The idea being to provide a minimal tomcat binary and many external modules which will be linked at runtime if present, Apache 2.0 does it that way, why could we do the same. You are re

Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )

Pier Fumagalli wrote: On 10/12/02 8:40 am, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Like the httpd, I'd prefer having a full distribution of all safe (yes, Jasper is safe) and generally useful modules. Experienced users can tweak the configuration to their likin

Re: Minimal or Modular it's up to you

on 2002/12/10 1:46 AM, "Henri Gomez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, so just take the tomcat core and don't install/activate > the jasper module. Exactly. -jon -- StudioZ.tv /\ Bar/Nightclub/Entertainment 314 11th Street @ Folsom /\ San Francisco http://studioz.tv/ -- To unsubscribe

Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )

Pier Fumagalli wrote: On 10/12/02 8:40 am, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There is one big huge difference... Modules are DSOs, if you don't enable them in your httpd.conf, they don't get loaded, they don't get used Disabling all of them can be done

Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )

On 10/12/02 8:40 am, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Like the httpd, I'd prefer having a full distribution of all safe (yes, > Jasper is safe) and generally useful modules. Experienced users can > tweak the configuration to their liking, and it is easy t

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

On 10/12/02 8:57 am, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Henri Gomez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pier Fumagalli wrote: > >> Pier (a _user_ now) > > And that's sad. Not apparently, as I am the reason why noone picked up Tomcat 4 :-) Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )

On 10/12/02 8:40 am, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I remember perfectly, and this Tomcat-HA was a complete joke. You > proposed a new implementation of the Catalina classes, which doesn't > make sense given the current Tomcat state That's what I was a

Re: Minimal or Modular it's up to you

Jon Scott Stevens wrote: on 2002/12/10 1:19 AM, "Henri Gomez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What Jon and Pier want is a minimal distribution of Tomcat 5. No. What I want is a distribution of a JSR 154 container with nothing more than the RI of JSR 154. Period. Ok, so just

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

on 2002/12/10 1:00 AM, "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All I'm seeing is that I shouldn't pay attention to your posts (I should > have learnt that a while ago, I guess) ;-) Is that good enough for you ? As Pier says: What-EVER! > Sorry, no. You should try to give users as few

Re: Minimal or Modular it's up to you

on 2002/12/10 1:19 AM, "Henri Gomez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What Jon and Pier want is a minimal distribution of > Tomcat 5. No. What I want is a distribution of a JSR 154 container with nothing more than the RI of JSR 154. Period. -jon -- StudioZ.tv /\ Bar/Night

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

on 2002/12/10 12:53 AM, "Henri Gomez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The idea being to provide a minimal tomcat binary and > many external modules which will be linked at runtime if > present, Apache 2.0 does it that way, why could we do the > same. You are repeating

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

on 2002/12/10 12:49 AM, "Henri Gomez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - Who will be the release managers for the 'alternative distributions', > may be Jon is candidate ? I already volunteered to manage the distribution that I propose. I have been doing distributions of servlet containers since you

Minimal or Modular it's up to you

There was many noise these days about making another release of tomcat (the minimal one covering only JSR154), and another proposal to make a modular Tomcat. It may be because my mother language is french, but I still didn't understand why Tomcat commiters didn't find an arrangement

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Jon Scott Stevens wrote: on 2002/12/9 8:21 AM, "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: People cannot agree on everything. Here, we're talking about relatively minor topics. This issue won't end up in a division of the community, but rather in one additional binary distribution based on the

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Pier Fumagalli wrote: On 9/12/02 17:14 "Jeanfrancois Arcand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Youy don't need to learn JSP/Admin Tool if you don't use it. The actual Tomcat installation doesn't require you to learn the Admin Tool or JSP As I said 6 or so months ago... That "thing" is a securit

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Jon Scott Stevens wrote: on 2002/12/9 7:32 AM, "Henri Gomez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What about using a minimal tomcat core with plugged modules to give access to jsp/jmx ? Will make both Costin, and Jon happy and let us have only one distribution with clear indication

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Jon Scott Stevens wrote: on 2002/12/9 7:27 AM, "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd really like to avoid the proliferation of too many distributions. I don't agree with that. There is nothing wrong with giving users choices. There is many things something wrong with many distrib

Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )

Pier Fumagalli wrote: On 9/12/02 23:58 "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But in this case you keep making false statements, and not only here. It should be quite easy to look for a [VOTE] or [PROPOSAL] that you made and was voted on tomcat-dev. I swear that _LOVE_ my mates... My

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Jeanfrancois Arcand wrote: OK, seems I don't have any supports to stay with my -1 (seems nobody care about the AdminTool argument :-)). So I will change my mind and vote 0. You don't have to justify anything for that vote, you know ;-) BTW, all of Pier arguments are just false. Don't get fool

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Pier Fumagalli wrote: On 9/12/02 23:51 "Pier Fumagalli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ehemm... With 24 pages of vulnerability notes? Ha.. Hahaha Hahahaha! :-) Correction to self... Not 24 pages... 24 notes... (Ok, I have an eyesight test tomorrow morning at 10:20 in SOHO... I know, I know..

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

OK, seems I don't have any supports to stay with my -1 (seems nobody care about the AdminTool argument :-)). So I will change my mind and vote 0. -- Jeanfrancois Pier Fumagalli wrote: On 10/12/02 0:30 "Jeanfrancois Arcand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Now, don't tell me that ALL that colle

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

On 10/12/02 1:06 "Justyna Horwat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I guess the high art of potty humor is not lost on idiots. My buttocks > are clenched in anticipation for the Pier (C) and TM fart jokes. :) Damn you know me far too well, Justy! :-) Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

I guess the high art of potty humor is not lost on idiots. My buttocks are clenched in anticipation for the Pier (C) and TM fart jokes. :) Justyna Pier Fumagalli wrote: On 9/12/02 9:16 "Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What I would love to see is a tree of downloads where eac

Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )

On 9/12/02 23:58 "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But in this case you keep making false statements, and not only here. It > should be quite easy to look for a [VOTE] or [PROPOSAL] that you made > and was voted on tomcat-dev. I swear that _LOVE_ my mates... My friend Tonia, who's a

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

On 10/12/02 0:30 "Jeanfrancois Arcand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Now, don't tell me that ALL that collection of cruft doesn't have a bug... >> It's just that we are lucky and noone found them yet (given enough eyes... >> Linus says)... >> > I never say that and I will never says that. But I l

Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution

Pier Fumagalli wrote: On 9/12/02 23:06 "Jeanfrancois Arcand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Pier Fumagalli wrote: On 9/12/02 17:14 "Jeanfrancois Arcand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Youy don't need to learn JSP/Admin Tool if you don't use it. The actual Tomcat installation doesn't re

Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )

On 10/12/02 0:10 "Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But in this case you keep making false statements, and not only here. It >> should be quite easy to look for a [VOTE] or [PROPOSAL] that you made >> and was voted on tomcat-dev. > > Then find it. I believe it never even went to [

  1   2   >