Costin Manolache wrote:
>Remy Maucherat wrote:
>
>
>
>>>If the EG prefers features over portability - then we need to find a
>>>way to create a distribution without JSP ( is this possible ?) and maybe
>>>compensate by including cocoon or velocity.
>>>
>>>
>>Personally, I would support 1.3 (and 1.2 assuming you are willing to
>>download missing libraries). 1.4 brings I/O improvements so it's a nice
>>JDK choice, even if the nio API itself seems useless for Tomcat.
>>
+1... I think 1.3 is available on several platforms. From a previous
email send last week, I re-call there were only 2 classes that do not
compile on 1.2. We should consider supporting 1.2 as well if it's
true....We can always optimize/abstract the code to use the stength of
the target platform (like NIO).
>>
>>
>
>I'm fine with using any API in JDK1.4 that we need - but not with
>_requiring_ JDK1.4. We can easily detect JDK1.4 and enable NIO for that
>case, or anything else that would help up.
>
>I'm obviously -1 on using jdk1.4 regexp or logging API or any 'boundled'
>feature that can't be used in plain Java2 ( especially when we have
>better alternatives that work with any java).
>
>
>
>>I have no problem with including Velocity if people want it. As for
>>Cocoon, it is huge, so this looks like a bad idea.
>>
Just by curiosity, which JDK version are they supporting?
>>
>>
>
>If we can't include JSP2.0 for JDK1.2 and JDK1.3 ( and more important for
>me - for GCJ and Kaffe and open source VMs ) - then we should include
>some alternative. We could include JSP1.2, but I doubt we're allowed to
>do so by licence.
>
>The 'default' tomcat release ( in case JSP2 remains with JDK1.4 requirement)
>will obviously continue to be the same. What I'm interested is what we'll
>do for the 'tomcat for java2' release.
>
>
>
>>If you're interested in the issue, you should make a proper call for vote.
>>
+1 The JSP 2.0 spec is not final, so we have time to ask for a change.
-- Jeanfrancois
>>
>>
>
>I'm interested in having tomcat and java-based webapps on most platforms. I
>would prefer to have JSP - and I'm more interested in having this
>requirement fixed. But if it stops beeing an option, then we need
>alternatives.
>
>
>If I would care more about features and less about portability, then I could
>write C# and use windows.
>
>
>
