RE: tomcat 4.0.2 and jakarta-tomcat-connectors

2002-01-04 Thread costinm
There is a small (possible) bug I'm debugging, related with lb which in some cases seem to fail to be 'sticky' ( it's not specific to jk1.4, it has been around forever from what I can see ). The fix should be small, I still have problems reproducing the bug so I can test the fix. Don't wait for

RE: tomcat 4.0.2 and jakarta-tomcat-connectors

2002-01-04 Thread Kevin Seguin
> > > I think we should tag the code with jk_1_4 ( considering > the jk that was > > included with 3.1 == jk1.1, etc ). It seems jk_1_4 will work > > with 3.3, 4.0.x and 4.1 ( and the C code can be used for > 3.2.x for bug > > fixes ). > > +1. > When it's done and when you can confirm it's work

Re: tomcat 4.0.2 and jakarta-tomcat-connectors

2002-01-04 Thread Remy Maucherat
> +1 > > I think we should tag the code with jk_1_4 ( considering the jk that was > included with 3.1 == jk1.1, etc ). It seems jk_1_4 will work > with 3.3, 4.0.x and 4.1 ( and the C code can be used for 3.2.x for bug > fixes ). +1. When it's done and when you can confirm it's working, I think we

Re: tomcat 4.0.2 and jakarta-tomcat-connectors

2002-01-04 Thread Daniel Rall
Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The mod_webapp connector code is definitely in a freshening. :) ^ need of Specifically, it would be great to get in Pier's fix to the file upload problem (if no

Re: tomcat 4.0.2 and jakarta-tomcat-connectors

2002-01-04 Thread Daniel Rall
Kevin Seguin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > there was a thread a couple weeks ago regarding what to do with j-t-c and > tomcat 4.0.2. i believe it was decided that the 4.0.2 release would contain > the same jars from j-t-c (tomcat-ajp.jar, tomcat-util.jar) as 4.0.1 did. > > well, i just did some

RE: tomcat 4.0.2 and jakarta-tomcat-connectors

2002-01-04 Thread costinm
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Kevin Seguin wrote: > i was thinking that for tomcat 4.0.2, the old stuff, jk/native, > jk/java/org/apache/ajp, would be considered the 'stable' (althought still > beta quality) code, and the new jk2, o.a.jk would be considered still > 'experimental'. just a thought, though -

RE: tomcat 4.0.2 and jakarta-tomcat-connectors

2002-01-04 Thread Kevin Seguin
> I think we should tag the code with jk_1_4 ( considering the > jk that was > included with 3.1 == jk1.1, etc ). It seems jk_1_4 will work > with 3.3, 4.0.x and 4.1 ( and the C code can be used for 3.2.x for bug > fixes ). > jk_1_4 is fine with me -- as long as it is tagged with something :)

Re: tomcat 4.0.2 and jakarta-tomcat-connectors

2002-01-04 Thread costinm
+1 I think we should tag the code with jk_1_4 ( considering the jk that was included with 3.1 == jk1.1, etc ). It seems jk_1_4 will work with 3.3, 4.0.x and 4.1 ( and the C code can be used for 3.2.x for bug fixes ). Regarding jk2, I'm still working, the current strugle is with the unix domain s

tomcat 4.0.2 and jakarta-tomcat-connectors

2002-01-03 Thread Kevin Seguin
there was a thread a couple weeks ago regarding what to do with j-t-c and tomcat 4.0.2. i believe it was decided that the 4.0.2 release would contain the same jars from j-t-c (tomcat-ajp.jar, tomcat-util.jar) as 4.0.1 did. well, i just did some quick tests with the 4.0.2-b1 dist and the head of