> 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
> there's people willing to deveop it)
>
> Servlet 2.3/JSP 1.2? Tomcat 4.x
>
> Servlet NEXT? When they come out, we'll see what we have in our hands and
> we'll decide....
And why not:
Servlet2.0 -> Tocmat3.3
Servlet2.1 -> Tomcat3.3
Servlet2.2 -> Tomcat3.3
Servlet2.3 -> Tomcat3.3
Servlet.next -> Tomcat3.3
And even:
"I have old servlet2.2 apps, and some new servlet3.0 apps, and there are
some incompatibilities between 3.0 servlet API and 2.2, what can I do
? " -> Tomcat3.3
Anyway, I'll be more than happy to remove the 2.3 facade from tomcat2.2 if
that it's your concern.
But I don't think you can stop me ( or someone else ) from implementing a
3.x Interceptor that plugs in a 2.3 ( or Servlet.Next ) into tomcat.
If the rules for "revolution" are still accepted, I'll do that in a
/proposal tree, if not - I'll do it on my home page. I think it's the
right thing to do, instead of rewriting everything again and again.
That's the main issue here, and that's what I think it's wrong in your
table - the code should be reusable, and supporting multiple facades is
not only easy, but it's important for future.
Costin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
