Jon Scott Stevens wrote: > I'm going to repost this message once again because it seems Remy and > Costin didn't bother reading it the first time and are now essentially > agreeing to what I suggested below. > > What-EVER!
What-EVER to you. Reading your posts is not my favorite activity - for this one I stoped at the first phrase ( "a tree of downloads" ). What Remy and Costin are agreeing on is one tomcat release that includes multiple profiles - so people can run "jsr154" or "minimal" or "default" or "all". Even if I would have passed this - the Java Server Faces part is clearly the end of your message for me ( and should have been the end of the conversation ). I don't know why you have the impression that I have to bother reading your messages. Costin > > -jon > > ------ Forwarded Message > From: Jon Scott Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 01:16:20 -0800 > To: tomcat-dev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] minimal JSR 154 only distribution > > What I would love to see is a tree of downloads where each one gains more > and more features (it is additive). Such as: > > JSR-154 Implementation > / \ > Jasper Velocity > / \ \ > Admin Tool (JMX) Java Server Feces Scarab > > That way, you only need to download what you need. Bundles are easily > created by simply picking off the branch of the tree that you want. If you > want the "Tomcat" distribution with web based administration abilities, > then you grab it at the "Admin Tool" level and so on. We can even build an > ant based system which is able to help us manage the selection of > components to include in the distribution. This would be similar to the > way that we currently have jar repositories and dependencies, but on an > application level. "Click here to install Jasper, Struts, etc." > > Not only does this provide our users the ability to simply get what they > need (and add it after the fact if they don't have it), it helps us focus > on providing a pluggable system which is separate from the other systems > (ie: clean dependencies). > > I personally think that this is a much cleaner way of providing > distributions because it does not require people to learn or deal with > things they do not care about. Options are a good thing. Let's not limit > ourselves. > > One last point, we should be able to experiment around here. The negative > votes have been based on biases about what I think about Jasper and my > opinions. They are not based on the idea that experimentation is a good > thing and I think that is just plain wrong and very closed minded. Who are > you to decide what our users may or may not like? In the end, if things > don't work out, then fine at least we learned something and we can move on > to the next thing. > > What do we really have to loose here? > > -jon > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
