For what is worth, I think Jon is 100% right on this one. And he was cristal clear about the reasons too.
Regards, Paulo > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 12:43 AM > To: tomcat-dev > Subject: Re: Missed vote > > > on 7/16/02 1:14 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What's so painful about a ten-line build.xml target that creates a > > separate JAR file with just the javax.servlet and javax.servlet.http API > > classes, if that's what you need? > > > > Sharing a CVS repository has little or nothing to do with how many > > distributable outputs you create. On the other hand, having > both servlet > > and JSP APIs in a single JAR file is quite useful to a very large number > > of existing Tomcat (and other container) users, so it should be > available > > also. > > > > Craig > > I used to say the same thing about Turbine and Torque. You could > use Torque > without using any of the Turbine code...yet people refused to use Torque > because it was packaged in the same jar file as Turbine. > > I also think that keeping two different API's in the same .jar file is a > terrible idea. Think about all the issues we have/had with the XML api's. > The Servlet API is also on a different release cycle than the JSP API. > > Also, having things in the same repo makes it to easy to create > dependencies > between the two API's...that is why the JSR's were split as well. > > As Pier said, 2 API's, 2 JSR's, 2 CVS repo's. > > Consider this my strong -1. > > -jon > > > -- > 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]>
