[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > As a consequence, I feel that this decision means that Tomcat 3.x can
> > *not* implement Servlet 2.3/JSP 1.2, since it would be very confusing
> > for both developers and users with two code bases supporting the same
> > API levels within the same project.
>
> While I disagree with that, I already did what you asked for and removed
> the 23 facade.
Yes, but you seem to create a lot of confusion about how and where
you will implement support for the new APIs eventually. That, I
believe, is one of the main reasons we have the current situation.
You said back in November that you where going to start a revolution
for the 2.3 stuff, as well as other features. But it never happened
and I see hints from you about adding support for the new APIs in 3.3
popping up now and then, without a clear indication about when and
where.
> Tomcat 3.x has been specifically designed to support multiple Servlet
> facades, and that's an important factor and can play an important role in
> deployment stories - people can easily migrate from a version to another
> and gradually convert their applications.
> It is an important feature - that no other container has.
Maybe. I'm not convinced that you can keep the same core for all
versions of the specs (who knows what the 2.4, if it happens, will
hold?), at least not without having to resort to pretty convoluted
and ineffecient code. But that's besides the point right now.
> Because we don't have a rule to name containers that support multiple
> servlet APIs - it doesn't mean we are not allowed to support that.
Well, within the same project it creates a lot of confusion if we
have more than one container the same API level. Besides, the Servlet
2.3
and JSP 1.2 APIs are backwards compatible, so Tomcat 4.0 by definition
supports 2.2/1.1 as well.
> Anyway - a servlet 2.3 implementatio for 3.3 is important to insure it's
> future, and I already said I'm going to work on it. I also said this is
> going to happen on a different repository, and will be released
> independently, so I think that resolves the naming problem.
Great. As have been said a few times, you can do that as a revolution
using a different name than Tomcat within the Jakarta project.
[...]
Hans
--
Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com
Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
