> 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.
The basic architecture/design will remain intact, it's just that we need
to remove all the code that is deprecated since 3.1, and to do the changes
that we have to do in order to have a better container.
If you look at the list, most of the "architecture" changes are
simplifying the object model, removing what it's not needed.
We couldn't do that in 3.2 - because of the available time, and the
risks.
Some of the "architecture" changes ( like OutputBuffer, MessageBytes ) are
required for enhancing the performance and fixing the internationalization
bugs ( that can't be fixed with 3.2 ).
Few other changes ( documenting and enforcing the server "state" ) are
again absolutely needed ( IMHO ).
That's what happened in 3.2 ( compared with 3.1 ), and that's
(IMHO) normal evolution of the code.
> 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.
There are few major refactorings - but probably less than we had between
3.1 and 3.2.
Again, it's normal evolution of tomcat3 - if you are only interested in
3.2 bug fixes that can be done in 3.2.1, etc - but I can't see why/how
tomcat3.3 can't evolve in the same way as 3.1 did.
> > - 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?
I would love to - but it's not that easy :-)
Costin
