I've just checked in your patch to the CVS HEAD of tomcat-4.0. You are correct that it is a straight refactoring, with no change in functionality.
I'm willing to play "code monkey" (© Pier) for the SSI specific stuff. Hopefully Amy is going to be willing to answer questions that I'll likely have, but otherwise it will just take me a little longer. You should continue to send patches to the tomcat-dev list, since I can't always promise when I'll have available time. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Sandberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Bill Barker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 7:16 PM Subject: Re: SSI Servlet has big problems > Hi Bill. > > The patch I sent in already is just code refactoring ( not SSI specific > ) and a few tiny utility classes ( also not SSI specific ). > > The next patch will be the SSI stuff, and is a complete rewrite. The > old stuff is so broken that even if my stuff has major bugs ( and I've > tested it by comparing output to Apache SSI with a very complex test > case ) it will still be an improvement. So really, the commiter doesn't > need to understand it per-se ( even though that would be easy--the code > is quite clean now ) but rather to check that I haven't done anything > malicious. > > Thanks, > > -Dan > > Bill Barker wrote: > > >I really don't know the SSI stuff very well at all, so I'd prefer if someone > >who knows it better. Amy seems to be the only currently active committer > >who has spent time on it however. If she really can't, then I'll take a > >crack at learning it. > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Dan Sandberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Bill Barker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 5:59 PM > >Subject: Re: SSI Servlet has big problems > > > > > > > > > >>Hi Bill. > >> > >>Can you be my 'point-man' on the CVS submissions, or suggest someone > >>else who might be willing to do the submissions? It seems like asking > >>for 'someone on the list to commit these changes' (as I did) will just > >>result in everyone waiting for someone else to do it. > >> > >>I'd very much like to get the SSI changes into 4.1, as the existing code > >>is extremely broken ( not thread-safe and broken anyway ). The new code > >>will fix bug Bug#6299 and Bug#5758, as well as adding new functionality. > >>It also leaves the code much more readable and modular. > >> > >>I asked Remy the same thing two days ago but got no response. Please > >>let me know either way. > >> > >>Thanks! > >> > >>-Dan > >> > >>Bill Barker wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>The standard way is to attach the output of "cvs diff" to an e-mail > >>> > >>> > >message > > > > > >>>with a subject beginning with the string "[PATCH]". If you continue to > >>> > >>> > >make > > > > > >>>work for us enough by doing this, eventually someone will propose you as > >>> > >>> > >a > > > > > >>>committer :-). > >>>----- Original Message ----- > >>>From: "Dan Sandberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 9:39 PM > >>>Subject: Re: SSI Servlet has big problems > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Remy Maucherat wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>Implementing the SingleThreadedServlet interface will not help thi > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>Are you sure ? > >>>>>(I didn't look at the code at all, so I'm just wondering) > >>>>>Otherwise, it would be a really cheap way to make it work. > >>>>> > >>>>>Thanks for looking into it anyway. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>Implementing SingleThreadedServlet doesn't mean only one thread will be > >>>>running the servlet at a time. It means only one thread will be running > >>>>a given INSTANCE of the servlet. So you could still have two threads > >>>>running two different instances of the same servlet. This will still > >>>>get massively messed up with all the sharing of static variables. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>Are the two authors still mantaining this code? Bip Thelin? Amy Roh? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>Not really. I didn't hear about Bip for a while, and Amy has been busy > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>with > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>other things. > >>>>>Usually an easy way to get commit access if you have time to dedicate > >>>>> > >>>>> > >to > > > > > >>>>>contributing is to take over the maintenance of some abandoned > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>component(s). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>CGI also needs a maintainer, BTW. > >>>>> > >>>>>Remy > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>I'll fix this problem, and I'll create a filter that does SSI on any > >>>>output ( so that a JSP page can use SSI, for example ). I don't have > >>>>any interest in being a maintainer/having commit access, however. > >>>> > >>>>So what's the best way to give back my bug fixes/filter? > >>>> > >>>>Thanks for the response, btw. > >>>> > >>>>-Dan > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>-- > >>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>For additional commands, e-mail: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>-- > >>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >>> > >>> > ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >>>For additional commands, e-mail: > >>> > >>> > ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
