on 4/12/01 1:25 PM, "Glenn Nielsen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you feeling ok jon?
Your resounding "YES!" above could be interpreted as support for JSP. ;-)
Yea, I just feel bad for all the poor lusers out there that have to use JSP
because Sun or someone else pushed it down their CTO's
on 4/10/01 1:59 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this possible for Tomcat too? Pros and cons?
Thanks and have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
Of course it is.
Proxy HTTP is probably not as efficient as a lightweight protocol (ie: AJP),
especially if the two systems are running on the same
on 4/10/01 6:46 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+
/**
+ * Close any database connection that is currently open.
+ */
+protected void close() {
+
+// Do nothing if the database connection is already closed
+if (dbConnection == null)
+
on 4/9/01 2:13 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are planning a small refactoring of jasper ( at least for tomcat3.3,
but one goal would be to merge the 2 branches we have in jakarta ). I
don't know when this will happen, but I know few people are looking
into that.
Where
on 4/9/01 2:54 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Jon Stevens wrote:
on 4/9/01 2:13 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are planning a small refactoring of jasper ( at least for tomcat3.3,
but one goal would be to mer
on 4/6/01 9:48 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why has the tomcat-dev list become a Velocity advocacy list??
Isn't the purpose of this list supposed to be for communation between
Tomcat developers? Is velocity recruiting or something?
=eas=
Yes!
:-)
-jon
Mel,
Please do not CC me directly as I'm already on the list. I have filed your
changes away for when I do my next revision of the site (there are several
other people's comments that I want to integrate as well). I hear you and
you made good suggestions.
Also, I do have to say that those two
on 4/4/01 3:55 PM, "Brad Cox" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glad that change made it in. DDJ wanted "Just say no to HTML". Arggh.
Yucky.
I'm so happy to see that more and more people are waking up to the fact that
JSP is bad. I'm also happy to see you worry about form validation issues.
That is
on 4/5/01 10:13 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So we need to fix it :-) After all that's one of the diferences between
the zillion templating systems and jsp - a spec with a wide variety of
implementations that improve.
I do agree with some of Jon's arguments - the spec
on 4/5/01 5:35 AM, "Matthew Dornquast" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I could be wrong given I don't know the full context, but the code from the
article on this page:
http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/ymtd/ymtd-generation.html isn't thead
safe, multiple requests coming in on different threads
I know that these are just minor bugs in Tomcat (and other servlet
containers as well), but man, this is getting ridiculous. This is clearly
yet another reason to not use JSP. Especially when you have sites like this:
http://www.devshed.com/Server_Side/Jserv/JSP5/page3.html
Actually
on 4/4/01 11:06 AM, "Brad Cox" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My article about a servlet-based alternative to JSP is in this
month's Dr. Dobbs Journal and at
http://www.ddj.com/articles/2001/0105/0105i/0105i.htm. The draft with
source code is at http://virtualschool.edu/wap.
I love the article
--
From: "Sverre H. Huseby" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: "Sverre H. Huseby" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:25:26 +0200
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Tomcat may reveal script source code by URL trickery 2
Meta comment
Ok, I know there has already been a report
--
From: "lovehacker" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:39:08 +0800
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: regards from lovehacker
hi jon:
#1. Please report security issues to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and/or [EMAIL PROTECTED] first. It seems
like that is a common courtesy.
I am very sorry!
i
Craig,
It seems that there is a bug in 4.0b2 where you must have at least one
context defined in the server.xml. Is that right? It seems to me that the
system should just pick up whatever .war files are in the webapps directory
without having to define a context for each one or at all. This
--
From: Stian Myhre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Stian Myhre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:54:52 +0200
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CHINANSL Security Advisory(CSA-200108)
Hi all.
It is possible not only to get the listing
but also the files.
If you use replace the
--
From: "Sverre H. Huseby" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 21:03:30 +0200
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Tomcat may reveal script source code by URL
trickery 2]
Jon,
I sent the following to [EMAIL PROTECTED] a few days ago, as you
requested. Now I wonder
fyi.
-jon
--
From: lovehacker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 03:56:51 -
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CHINANSL Security Advisory(CSA-200109)
HI Sverre:
Thanks your reply.
your website is very nice.
Today,I download Tomcat 4.0-b2 but it
--
From: lovehacker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 03:49:00 -
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: CHINANSL Security Advisory(CSA-200110)
Topic:Tomcat 4.0-b2 for winnt/2000 show ".jsp"
source Vulnerability.
vulnerable:
winnt/2000(maybe for other
-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:18:41 -0800
Subject: Re: CHINANSL Security Advisory(CSA-200105)
From: Jon Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: tomcat-dev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-version
Dear "lovehacker",
Tomcat 3.0 is an old version and has several known security holes. That is
why we recommend that people run the latest released version which is
currently 3.1.1 or 3.2.1 (depending on the branch you are interested).
Also, Tomcat 3.2.2b2 is also available on our website which
on 3/19/01 8:32 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 [ ] I support the proposed release, and will work to support it
+0 [X] I support the proposed release, but cannot work on it
at this time
-0 [ ] I do not support the proposed release, but do not have an
on 3/17/01 12:07 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+private String filter(String message) {
Not sure if you have to do this for private methods, but you might want to
make that final in order to make sure that the JVM inlines the method.
stupid question of the day
Also,
on 3/3/01 10:52 AM, "Dan Milstein" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon,
Do you think these tools are *worth* using, or do they cause more problems
than they solve?
I've got a friend who is a pretty solid autoconf/automake guru, and I'm
trying to tempt him into helping out with setting this
on 3/2/01 11:58 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For "real" production servers I hope you'll use Apache, and for embeding
tomcat in apps or development you don't need 500 requests per seconde.
What if we need 500 requests per second for non-static files? :-)
-jon
on 3/2/01 9:12 AM, "Jones, Stephen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anybody know how to use autoconf or automake?
We could perhaps put an end to most of the mod_jk compilation problems if we
had some good configure scripts that generated Makefiles. I don't know how
complicated the tools
on 3/3/01 6:55 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 3/2/01 11:58 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For "real" production servers I hope you'll use Apache, and for embeding
tomcat in apps or development you don't need 500 requests per seconde.
What if we need
on 2/26/01 8:37 PM, "jerry123" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi guys,
I want to be a developer in your team. Could you tell me how to do it?.
Thanks a lot.
Michael
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/getinvolved.html
-jon
--
If you come from a Perl or PHP background, JSP is a way to take
Ok,
I'm sure it is me not paying attention, but is there some reason why the
tomcat 4.0 nightly directory structure looks like this now:
common/lib/
100 -rw-r--r-- 1 jon staff 98496 Feb 22 03:46 jndi.jar
56 -rw-r--r-- 1 jon staff 53553 Feb 22 03:46 naming.jar
76
on 2/22/01 2:42 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Not a problem ... I want this puppy to work.
So do I. :-)
One quick question (that I'm sure will be answered when I look into this in
detail) -- the log files show that it did the "Unload persistent sessions"
stuff, but no
on 2/22/01 2:55 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
$CATALINA_HOME/server/classes (i.e. unpacked directory)
$CATALINA_HOME/server/lib/*.jar (ie.. packed JAR files)
Hmmm...I guess I just don't see the need for the /lib directory.
ie:
$CATALINA_HOME/server/classes (i.e.
on 2/22/01 3:07 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
You need to do this anyway ... the vintage of Tomcat 4.0 that you have is out
of date, and in particular the whole session persistence thing was modified
(and tested) since what you have.
Among other things, that is why you
Yea, I have proof AND a way to test it in 10 easy steps! :-)
(but no idea on how to fix it :-()
What I did to confirm and test it was this:
(sorry Craig, it is going to require installing MySQL and loading the Scarab
schema...it isn't hard and directions are provided below):
#1. Install
on 2/15/01 9:57 AM, "Larry Isaacs" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to thank all those who have volunteered their time and efforts to
bring Tomcat 3.3m1 to this point. I look forward to continuing the effort to
bring Tomcat 3.3 to a final release.
Thanks,
Larry Isaacs
Wow, that was
on 2/11/01 7:54 AM, "GOMEZ Henri" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I could help port of latest native mod_jk stuff from TC 3.3,
if everybody agrees. So we could have both apache 1.3 and 2.0
connectors, and be at the same level between TC 3.2.2/3.3
Is that in the release plan?
-jon
--
If you come
on 2/11/01 7:21 AM, "Marc Saegesser" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ] +1 I am in favor of this plan and will help
[X] +0I am in favor of this plan, but am unable to help
[ ] -0I am not in favor of this plan
[ ] -1 I am against this plan being executed, and my
reason is:
-jon
--
If
on 2/11/01 11:27 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This adds another dependency between jasper and tomcat.util ( the first is
tomcat.util.log, now tomcat.util.compat ). Since both packages are completely
standalone and can be bundled with jasper, I don't think it'll be a
on 2/7/01 10:24 AM, "BOON PING LIM" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tomcat-Apache is my choice to implement JSP.
i wish to u JDBC-ODBC bridge to link database with JSP pages.
i were told that JDK 1.3 standard edition does not support JDBC, therefore,
i have installed "j2sdkee-1_2_1-win" -- JSDK
on 2/7/01 3:34 PM, "Marc Saegesser" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please review and comment on the proposed release plan. I will call release
plan vote in the near future.
+0 if and only if (ie: not -1) the following is modified to state:
"Any bug introduced after Tomcat 3.2.1 MUST be fixed."
on 2/4/01 12:26 PM, "Charles Chen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry if this is not the right list to ask such a simple question. I thought
this list are read by all those tomcat experts and therefore may get this
answer more quickly.
Totally unacceptable and a complete lack of respect for the
on 2/1/01 9:30 AM, "Craig R. McClanahan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There is movement in the various Jakarta subprojects towards modifying
build scripts so that "build" and "dist" targets are created *within*
the top-level source directory, rather than "up and over" the way they
are now.
on 2/1/01 1:17 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone knows what's the status and who is working on Alexandria ?
I have a simple patch ( for a piece that I use ), and I don't know where
to send it.
You send patches to the mailing list.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm using the
on 1/30/01 8:13 AM, "Larry Isaacs" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After Larry's recent commit on the changes...my vote is now:
[ ] +1 I am in favor of this plan and will help
[x] +0I am in favor of this plan, but am unable to help
[ ] -0I am not in favor of this plan
[ ] -1 I am against
Ok,
He has been sending lots of excellent patches as well as the fact that he
already has an apache.org account. I think we should give him commit access.
We need two more +1's from others with commit access.
-jon
-
To
on 1/31/01 7:46 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He has been sending lots of excellent patches as well as the fact that he
already has an apache.org account. I think we should give him commit access.
We need two more +1's from others with commit access.
+1
Costin
on 1/30/01 8:13 AM, "Larry Isaacs" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Please return this portion with your vote -
Tomcat 3.3 Release Plan Ballot:
[ ] +1 I am in favor of this plan and will help
[ ] +0I am in favor of this plan, but am unable to help
[ ] -0I am not in favor of
on 1/30/01 11:10 AM, "Larry Isaacs" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Jon,
I changed the release plan to not promise that all bugs will be
fixed as a requirement for release, since that isn't practical.
Some of the open issues were open prior to the Tomcat 3.2 release.
IMHO, if they weren't
on 1/29/01 3:52 AM, "Klemme, Robert, myview" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
i cannot believe that people at sun would risk these consequences,
do they?
LOL! That is the funniest thing I have read in a long time! :-)
People are not perfect and they make human errors. This is clearly one of
them and
on 1/25/01 10:26 AM, "Christopher Cain" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just attempted to grab the latest 3.x nightly source from the Jakarta
site. The link points to:
http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/tomcat/nightly/src/
... but returns a 404. Any ideas? (I am stuck in Windoze at the moment
on 1/25/01 11:42 AM, "Paul Speed" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just thought that I would point out that:
"My " + "dog " + "has " + "fleas." will be compiled as one String:
"My dog has fleas." and incurs no runtime penalties. In the case
of literals it can be more efficient than StringBuffer as
on 1/24/01 10:06 AM, "Larry Isaacs" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It should be noted that when this plan comes up for a vote, a +1 by a
committer will constitute a commitment not only to helping with the release,
but to provide maintenance support beyond the release.
I'm not sure that I agree
on 1/24/01 3:23 PM, "Pier Fumagalli" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another big one...
--
Pier Fumagalli mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
One thing that I have asked (several times now) is that commits be made
smaller by doing them in chunks instead (everyone agreed).
I
on 1/22/01 2:55 AM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, by fundamentally right I mean that the basic idea is perfect and that
the implementation is somewhat shity. In the case of dial ins, I think that
he should not reprehend specific people (as he did with me and others) for
not
Hey Anil,
I know your car was broken, but you could have gotten a ride to the PMC
meeting from one or more of the *many* people that you work with who were
there (James, Pier, Amy, Jim, Costin, Justyi, Craig) and voiced your
opinions directly instead of attempting to bring them up here after
on 1/22/01 1:55 PM, "Anil Vijendran" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That said, I don't understand why you bring this up _now_.
I didn't bring it up earlier cause you weren't carrying on this discussion
about trying to censor me...nor was it something that "I can/should
bring up at the PMC." Do you
on 1/22/01 4:33 PM, "Anil Vijendran" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Its not that someone is opiniated that bothers me, its how it is conveyed.
Are you still discussing this issue? I thought you said you were going to
stop.
How about discussing what to do when a developer goes and does whatever the
on 1/22/01 4:51 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Therefore, I would like to propose "unfreezing" the 4.0 codebase, and opening
it
again to new development, with some of the major items listed below. The
revised release plan for Tomcat 4.0 Beta 2 would then become:
on 1/21/01 4:50 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In principle, it seems to me that you could write a webapp that does what
mod_proxy does for Apache -- making this server a proxy for some other server
--
and then extend it with support for load balancing and other such
on 1/20/01 7:56 PM, "James Cook" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many others seem to be able to voice their opinions (even when they are
strong disagreements) without appearing condescending or unusually harsh.
I tried to be nice. More than once. It didn't work.
-jon
on 1/19/01 9:38 AM, "Craig R. McClanahan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Impact on the overall
4.0 release cycle is more problematic -- I think we would want to do this in a
new
beta round and add a week of intensive testing to make sure nothing got
destabilized.
Remember that Sun does not
on 1/19/01 11:51 AM, "Craig R. McClanahan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Agreed ... I'm talking about the *Apache Tomcat* release cycle, where we
agreed in the release plan to have a feature freeze / bug fix round on 4.0,
and work towards a production quality release quickly. API surgery is not
on 1/17/01 11:38 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
costin 01/01/17 23:38:24
Added: .RELEASE-PLAN-3.3
You are missing the word "support" in this entire document. It has already
been stated that it is a *requirement* in the PMC meeting that in order for
a
We had a in person PMC meeting on the 16th. This is described on the Jakarta
News Page. Meeting minutes will be posted to this list soon.
Part of the agreement of the meeting is that non-has-to-be-private PMC mail
will be posted to the General@jakarta list in order to quell the belief that
the
on 1/18/01 4:28 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If you change the names and parameter orders a little, you have just quoted
the
new api for javax.servlet.Filter in the 2.3 Proposed Final Draft.
I'd be game to change the Valve APIs to conform to this kind of pattern in a
on 1/17/01 10:28 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Costin
( believe me, it was one of my worst days, I hope you understand a bit my
feelings. )
Why was it one of your worst days? I don't see how it could have been bad,
nor do I see how that could influence your actions here by
on 1/17/01 3:33 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, of course, you are biting the bait, the hook, the line...
Enough was already said about that. Sam, Hans, Amy and I managed to talk
about it with no flames and Costin already apologized.
He apologized for taking things
on 1/17/01 4:42 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure! Kick him harder!
Lets see, he started out his *first* email after the meeting with flame
bait, his next email was a pseudo apology, his third email is asking for
censorship.
Sure. I'm going to kick back. I'm tired of putting
on 1/17/01 5:50 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, you write too much about a name when the question has always been
having or not a 3.3 in the 3.x branch.
Nope. No proposal for that has been made yet.
Most of us (for whom having a 3.3 is interesting) are still not concerned
on 1/17/01 6:44 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-----
From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 02:58
on 1/17/01 5:50 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. No proposal for that has be
on 1/17/01 7:43 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. You are flaming Costin again (is that harassment?);
I don't see a flame there. I'm simply speaking truth. Costin's actions and
statements have clearly shown that he believes in censorship. He even tried
to bring up motions in the
on 1/15/01 9:51 PM, "Anil Vijendran" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Talking about someone's mother is just not kosher.
I didn't talk about his mother. I'm simply showing the immaturity and
rudeness of telling someone to shut up.
-jon
on 1/15/01 11:17 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll just set a filter - and I advise you do the same. I'm going to ignore
any posting Jon does, and I'll avoid any project where he's involved.
Again. More censorship.
-jon
Anil. That was a question, not a stated comment about his mother. It was
said in such a way as to show that if I had commented about his mother, it
would be as low as telling someone to shut up.
-jon
on 1/16/01 12:46 AM, "Anil Vijendran" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon Stevens wrote:
on 1/15/01 9:52 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again - 3.x is the only reason I'm still here, and I want to finish it as
soon as possible and be free.
In case you missed it, no software is *ever* "done". If you think you can
just do another release and then stop all work on
on 1/15/01 12:56 PM, "Kief Morris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that's _your_ reason for thinking he should go. I get the impression
his own reasons for saying he wants to go has a lot more to do with the
pressure he's getting to either conform to the party line or get lost. What
you say
on 1/15/01 2:20 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many people feel that 3.3 is the safest bet for the next year. Some of us
want to keep real world production sites running with real world
constraints. Those of us can postpone using the beautiful new features of
Catalina but still
on 1/15/01 2:15 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. What I am saying is that as a group, we choose to go in a certain
direction and voted on it (with zero -1's).
Let me refer you to this link (again):
http://w6.metronet.com/~wjm/tomcat/2000/Aug/index.html#00195
You
on 1/15/01 2:32 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not going to fork tomcat3, nor to abandon it - but for any new
features and ideas I'll use a separate workspace, where I can work
without fighting.
--
Costin
Great! I encourage you to do so!
-jon
--
Honk if you love
on 1/15/01 2:25 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, it is much more responsible to push for another release that is
easier to maintain by others than just leave it as it is. And that seems to
be the case with Costin and 3.3.
Can you please give me concrete evidence that
on 1/15/01 2:09 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Based on this and the actual proposed "long term plans" that followed, I'm
not sure how this thread addresses when 3.x code development should end.
It doesn't. That is why we are having a PMC meeting and why this whole flame
war
on 1/15/01 3:08 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you please give me concrete evidence against?
Beacuase you are the one against the flow on that one.
Everybody that knows both says 3.3 is better than 3.2. Are they all
wrong?
Like I said. That isn't what is being
on 1/15/01 3:05 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) When a revolution is ready for prime time, the committer proposes a
merge to the -dev list. At that time, the overall community evaluates
whether or not the code is ready to become part of, or to
potentially replace the,
on 1/15/01 3:09 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, what you don't like is either "not proposed or agreed" or "not
justified " ( the -1 votes against you ) or "not agreed by the PMC".
And what you want is "what the community want".
--
Costin
P.S. - ops, it
on 1/15/01 4:13 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your favorite answer when a better one is missing.
No. I don't have time to answer things that clearly aren't relevant.
But I thing this is the question.
* Isn't Open Source Software community driven?
Depends on how you define
on 1/15/01 4:24 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Several members want to go on with 3.3 and the only one I see making a big
fuss of stopping it its you.
I don't know what the *fuck* you are talking about.
-jon
--
From: Jon Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-
on 1/15/01 4:36 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, Apache is the boss of Costin and pays him to do work on Tomcat 4 but he
works on 3.3 instead?
How voluntary is voluntary work here?
(Tell me please, before I contribute with something and become Jon's slave!)
Paulo, try
on 1/15/01 5:13 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This makes a lot of sense to me.
Have fun,
Paulo
Finally someone gets through to you.
I also agree with Hans 100%.
-jon
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
on 1/15/01 4:59 PM, "Remy Maucherat" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, Apache is the boss of Costin and pays him to do work on Tomcat 4 but
he
works on 3.3 instead?
Nearly all the open-source projects out there have a "boss" who gets to
decide whether or not they like your stuff. If you fail
on 1/15/01 5:22 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perfect, but as Hans mentioned, there was never a decision to stop 3.3.
Exactly why this meeting is happening and my original [MY_OPINION] thread
started.
And I have been seing much more rants and FUD from Jon, "which doesn't
help
on 1/15/01 5:35 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The one person having problems is you. And it is not only with me that
you are having them anyway.
Paulo
What problems do I have again?
Lets see, I can think of a few:
I don't want to maintain code/resources for which the lead
on 1/15/01 5:38 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You opinion is EVERYWHERE!
What is wrong with that? I'm an active developer on this project. Suddenly
I'm not allowed to have an opinion on things?
Exactly what FUD have I spread?
Was it only rants then?
Was *what* only rants?
on 1/15/01 5:41 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those are the "Jon's rules" I was talking about before.
Paulo
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 02:30
My mistake - it is of course a "project
on 1/15/01 7:18 PM, "Anil Vijendran" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What the f*ck is it, really?!
The two points I have brought up are:
#1. that Costin didn't make a vote in the ASF because his boss @ Sun didn't
let him.
#2. that his employer also tried to pull him off the project by giving him
on 1/15/01 7:39 PM, "Rajiv Mordani" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Jon Stevens wrote:
on 1/15/01 3:09 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, what you don't like is either "not proposed or agreed" or "not
jus
on 1/15/01 8:16 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The history is what is important here. The fact of the matter is that if Sun
had not donated Tomcat 3.x, we would already be using a much more complete
Catalina as Craig had already started work on it and was pulled off from
on 1/15/01 8:21 PM, "Jon Stevens" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still agree with that. In fact, the feature requests that have come
through today by the users even stated that they would only be using it by
connecting to Tomcat.
s/Tomcat/Apache/
sorry...long day of typing...
-jon
This pretty much summarizes today...
LOL!
-jon
--
This assignment was actually turned in by two English students: Rebecca
Gary (last names deleted).
English 44A SMU, Creative Writing Prof. Miller "In-class Assignment
for Wednesday".
"Today we will experiment with a new form called
on 1/15/01 8:10 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you argue about how Valve's single chain of command ( where
authentication, generation, etc are done in a single invoke() ) can be
better than what all other server are doing ( and Apache 2.0 moves to a
different level with
on 1/15/01 9:03 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The reasons why there are advantages for (at least) the next year or so
on having both 3.3 and 4.x were already stated so often today...
3.3 will get released. That isn't the question.
...and also how 3.3 commiters are scratching
on 1/14/01 3:11 PM, "Geoff Soutter" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Jon Stevens" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 1/11/01 8:30 PM, "Geoff Soutter" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Let me also state that at this point in time, I see Velocity+Turbine as
being one of the
201 - 300 of 439 matches
Mail list logo
