> * The good point with TC 4.0 are all the good things inside (JMX, JAXP
> 1.0/1.1)
> The bad point on TC 4.0 are all these good things (JMX, JAXP 1.0/1.1).
>
> You have seens the thread on '[PROPOSAL] building is easy'. We need too
> many
> things now to build TC 4.0.
You need JAXP, JSSE and JMX.
- The JMX components are NOT used at runtime except if you run TC4 through
JMX.
- JAXP, well, most Jakarta projects require it already.
- JSSE is required just to compile the secure SSLServerSocketFactory (whaich
was taken from the 3.2 tree) and that's it.
I don't see any fancy features here, or anything too unusual, except that
some of these things (like JSSE) should have conditional switches.
> Also even if TC 4.0 is an OpenSource projects,
> too
> many of the required packages are not 'Open Sourced' or not easily
> exportable.
> Also many peoples want to have a fast servlet engine with a low memory
> profile.
> I saw TC 4.0 to be much hungry.
>From my experience, it looks we're talking 20% more here (or 2-3M), which
doesn't seem that much to me. Apparently, we're creating more objects than
TC3 in the core.
> * Why not consider TC 3.3 as a light servlet engine ? It make sense since
> many sites
> will not need all the stuff inside TC 4.0.
I fail to see to which part of TC4 it does apply.
> * I don't saw that as a duplicate effort. TC 3.3 is the continuation of
3.x
> tree.
> TC 4.0 is much more ambitiuous and nice for the next future but the
> present now
> is Apache JServ, Tomcat 3.1 and some Tomcat 3.2. We need to have a
> continuation
> effort on existing software for present hardware.
I don't agree. TC3.3 is a rewrite of TC3.2, with all of the TC4 "fancy
features" (and some more).
AFAIK, there is no plan to get rid of / stop maitaining TC 3.2, and actually
it's Craig who handles the 3.2 releases and maintenance releases (like
3.2.1), not Costin.
> >One thing that Craig did with 4.0 that was the right thing to do was to
> >lobby the core developers into working on his vision of the
> >future, where
> >your "attitude" has been to simply continue working on your
> >vision no matter
> >what everyone else is doing.
>
> * That's may be the core of the problem. Craig has been just to good in
> lobbying. There is not too much core developpers now in TC 3.3.
> Another problem is that the majority of TC 4.0 developpers are Sun
> employees. Many could see TC 4.0 as a Sun projects with externals
> contributions and bugs reports. Please remember the discussions on
> Xerces list against IBMers and Suners about Spinaker and Xerces 2.0
As far as I know, nearly of the core TC devs are / were Sun people anyway,
so actually it's Sun vs Sun.
> The danger now is that Apache Group seems to loose its heart.
As far as I'm concerned, TC3.x is THE Sun project. It was developed
internally at Sun, and then released as OSS to the Apache group. Up until
3.1, it was developed by Sun people.
TC4 has been designed and developed by Craig, who was one of the original of
JServ. I started contributing to TC4 earlier this year, and I've recently
joined Sun (1 month ago), but that's more because of personal problems with
my previous employer (Exoffice / Intalio) than anything else.
> Majors software companies are flying and provide their software
> under the Apache Umbrella. Must we wait now for a Microsoft arrival with
> a .NET or C# contribution to Apache Group ?
>
> Did the operating system of Apache systems is still FreeBSD ?
>
> Please wake-up all and see that Costin may be one of the latest BSDers
out
> of
> there. An excellent developper but a poor politic.
>
> All of us, have just too many politics in real life, so let it outside
> Apache wall.
>
> Let Costin and others continue their work on TC 3.3, 3.4, 3.5.
> Just saw TC 3.3 and successor as a lightweight alternative to the more
> ambitious TC 4.0.
>
> Jakarta must be able to answer to user with low cost system. And please
> don't forget that
> Apache has made it's reputation on a fast http server running nicely on
a
> 386 with 12m RAM.
Neither TC3 nor TC4 would run fine on that, I'm afraid.
Remy
