Quoting Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Ovidiu Predescu wrote: > > > > I'm glad this actually didn't happen, since it took a long time for the > > 4.0 branch to become stable and usable. If it weren't for the "legacy" > > codebase being continually developed, we would have been stuck with a > > slow 3.2 and a buggy 4.0. I've used Tomcat 3.3 for more than a year > > before switching to 4.1, and I liked 3.3 a lot for its speed and features. > > What would have been more likely to happen is that Tomcat 3.3 would have > continued on SourceForge, been known by a different name, had a fully > supported servlet 2.3 facade, and would have been known as the > production quality servlet engine.
Oh, I think some of my signal was lost in the middle of the conversation. So, let me get this straighten out. Here is what I would have liked to see happening in Tomcat: 1) Catalina was voted in. 2) Catalina was renamed Tomcat 4.0 and moved on the main trunk 3) Tomcat 3.x was proposed for internal fork and renamed *whatever* (but not tomcat) 4) *whatever* was proposed for Tomcat 5.0 and voted in In short, that was the way I would have liked Tomcat to route around Craig's ideas about servlet engine architectures. Technically, I *HATE* tomcat 4.0, it's an accademic architectural exercise, it's slow as hell, it is a memory hog, it has mile-long recursive stacktraces, it's designed for J2EE embedding instead of being designed for a lightweight servlet plugin for web servers. But that is my personal technical opinion and that is a totally different concern regarding the community dynamics. I believe it was a mistake to allow two different codebases to share the same name. And the reason for this is mainly because it would have been very hard for the 3.x codebase to *revolutionize back* and route around 4.x. 3.x should have > > In retrospect, I think the decision to continue the development on both > > Tomcat versions was a good one. It let the time solve the frictions. The > > result is that now we have a very mature Tomcat community, and little of > > the past problems are reflected today on the mailing list. > > +1 But the negative waves of that period are still resonating around the foundation and I *don't* want to experience that again. -- Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ------------------------------------------------------------
