Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>
> So, here I stand, my vote is a big -1 on a 3.3 as a newly
> architected servlet container
Pier, I beg of you to reconsider.
I was not present in the ApacheCon in 1998. Nor was I in the room when the
Jakarta decision was made. Nor was I on the state at JavaONE, when
Patricia Sueltz made the announced with you, Jon, Stefano, and Brian.
I can tell you that from my perspective, after all that transpired - and a
merge twelve months ago - Jakarta Tomcat was hardly an open source project.
It took a lot of hard work to make it open and viable. And a lot more that
those four mentioned above were involved.
Pier, take a step back. Look at where servlets were as a technology two
years ago. One year ago. Today. Project where you think they will be one
year from now, two years from now. Do you really believe that irreparable
harm is going to come from today's explorations and fleshing out possible
alternatives - particularly since this is all being done in the open and
under a license that would very much encourage code sharing and reuse?
I very much believe the contrary - that the only potential irreparable harm
that can come from this is the stifling of innovation.
Pier, Is now the right time, and is this the right way to fight this
particular battle?
I don't personally care whether any particular change made by any committer
is described as a bug fix, a feature enhancement, or an architectural
change - these descriptions, after all, are subjective.
My suggestion is that discussion returns to the technical merits of the
various approaches, and exploration of ways in which the various branches
can exploit and cannibalize the best ideas from each other. Independent of
the labels currently associated with each proposal.
- Sam Ruby
