[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...]
> Now, that I have a bit more time ( I hope :-), I can start spending
> more time working on tomcat. There are 2 possible ways to do that:
>
> 1. In the current "main branch", incorporate all the fixes from tomcat3.2,
> plus fixes for the new bugs.
>
> 2. Start with tomcat3.2, and re-do all the changes.
>
> My preference is toward 2 - even if it will probably take a longer
> time. I think this is the normal "evolution", i.e. building on top of the
> stable release. Because of the long release cycle 3.3 and 3.2 are out of
> sync, and I don't want to loose any of the "evolutions" and fixes that
> happened.
I agree, +1 on option 2).
Regarding the proposed changes, I'm +0. I'd like to see 3.3 (or ideally it
should be called 3.2.x if you decide to start from scratch with the 3.2
base) as the continuation of 3.2, with focus on bug fixes and minor
improvements (e.g. performance, admin, etc.) in support of the 2.2/1.1 APIs
as opposed to refactoring to a completely new architecture. From the mails
on this list, it seems like the majority wants a stable 3.2.x code base
that's good enough to be used in production. Another important reason
to keep the basic architecture intact is to give people a chance to learn
how it works and be able to contribute to the 3.2.x code base. If it keeps
changing, there will be very few that has the time to keep up.
Without analyzing all the proposals in detail (which I don't have the time
to do), it's hard to say which category they belong to. If some of them
imply a major refactoring, turning it to a new architecture, I suggest you
do them as a revolution instead as we discussed earlier.
> [...]
> UTILS
>
> - consolidation/refactoring of all tomcat-independent and general-purpose/
> reusable code into org.apache.tomcat.util.[log, etc ]
>
> - new utils
If they are truly reusable (e.g. used in both Tomcat and Jasper), wouldn't
org.apache.util be a better package name?
Hans
--
Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com
