Hi, I think the problem is that how we target tomcat 8.5 to the users. Is it a biased to 8.0, or is it biased to 9.0?
For the former case, we should keep the backward compatibility as much as possible. For the latter case, breaking things should be assumable by end users. IMO, 8.5 should be the former case. However, I don't think most of the user will be affected by this change. Therefore the priority should be MINOR or even TRIVIAL. Overall, I am +0 to add an option to restore the reason phase in 8.5( a warning message should be logged if this option is turned on), and drop the option in 9.x. Anyway, we should note this change in 8.5 migration guide [1]. [1] http://tomcat.apache.org/migration-85.html On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:08 AM, Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > All, > > I'm cross-posting dev@ and users@, but please only reply to dev@ if > you'd like to get involved in this discussion. > > I'd like to openly-discuss r1702765 [1]. There have been some > complaints on both users@ and dev@ and some BZ issues filed against > Tomcat 8.5 and 9.0 for removing the reason phrase. It happened in > r1702765 with no referenced BZ issue and was first released with > Tomcat 8.5.0 -- the initial release of Tomcat 8.5 -- as well as 9.0.0.M1 > . > > This issue doesn't really affect me, but some recent conversations > about the "stability" (in terms of "things not changing") of Tomcat > have me thinking about the implications of making this change in > Tomcat 8.5.x and not in just Tomcat 9.0.x. > > It is well-known within this community that Tomcat 8.0.x and Tomcat > 8.5.x are distinct versions, but since the major version number is the > same, many have expectations that nothing serious is going to change. > Of course, 8.5.x has *many* serious changes to it with respect to > Tomcat 8.0.x. But this one seems to be tripping a lot of people up. > > Those who are filing bugs, etc. are quite adamant that the reason > phrase is "required" for certain things. To be sure, the reason phrase > will only be required by non-compliant clients, and so technically the > client is at fault, here. > > I'm wondering what the wider community thinks about this change and > whether or not we should consider reverting it for Tomcat 8.5.x. > > Again, please reply to the dev@ list, since that's where this > discussion belongs. I just wanted to make sure I reached the widest > audience possible to begin a discussion. > > Thanks, > - -chris > > [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=r1702765 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJYh6ZCAAoJEBzwKT+lPKRYnJgQAIe57jJw2iUk86I63NGsqPnY > IKWjZoMuqd8vlczn8/FF/drWMV7ObYsrhsYmJATR5iVI+/xdEXB7n8cMO7B7+ryV > Sxe1Tcmh/tBNJ83a8C+zSHWvnIELYRonHm9syApa7onPKcsoEe6MTrsdL1M+An9U > 9IvXtH3BfYKAynze5pkNS6I+ILjgWvNSclJFHmDNHWmRPyqdob4OtMWkSSU3qRBX > FfbEk9IMrEbIit6CH75dw9xfaUDDRudnw3MBkKaV8VOLUoykvSMK1w9GdufO4ohP > Dw/+l6CkXl8xCSRcNwXrDdJcisT9gN6Ey7+g7zrgAcg62RP3ftrQMCzT2VDQV3b4 > IlZfTi+vEdsKKzGUdH+OLbN0+hiW0bnuxJmTG2zQSGwKsIh78aFdPKShv4u22XKB > xfcKn9c6XGUHH88j0ZVSOLh2AmORCvuDfQNA3NJCOceRwQsV1OHAda65fFlkjyiz > Q/yMMV8VlblGJRItN1nEwheIs9ru3MokRBhaXQ78ehSkRxbkIPawP6ZSiojmv/80 > aKx3/T413GOK4e18sK3XFHP4NowkR7VR/a1R5Py7L2kpzhMJcc4bstYuE9hugfiN > BaECAT66qahCmP0xVoiFEB2A0+sD0wRKZ6K1gPCarPdLKh6cX4poRcMK4i0jgG2a > cao/Frb1y8JDm8maw1Q8 > =oQCi > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org > -- Best Regards！ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
