Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Architecturally, this sounds like a good thing. My main concerns here > really relate to notification of potential vendors and consumers. While > that's not architectural (its a C-Team issue), its still interesting. > Do we have any sense of who's using these features.
Not sure here. We got recently one escalation for S10 which made us to act. But it was probably first since S10 was released. > Note that PSARC 2000/040 specified the jserv files as Stable. > Personally, I think this was probably in error, given that it was > tracking an open source effort without a proven track record. I > believe this EOF therefore requires some "extra effort" to ensure that > no negative impacts are felt within the software we ship, that there is > extra effort made to inform users of this impending EOF, and that the > project team has made a good faith effort to identify what external > consumers, if any, are going to be busted by this. Agree. Will ask SFW C-Team to double check. > (A brief bit of googling on my part suggests that there has already been > a fair amount of "communication" about mod_jserv being "deprecated" done > by the Apache community. In fact, it would appear that Apache 2.x does > not support this.) > Indeed, this begs a question: wouldn't it simply be easier to remove > mod_jserv with the removal of Apache 1.3.x. I'm assuming that if we've > not already EOF'd Apache 1.3 in favor of 2.0, that we will do so at some > point in the future? Simple removal of JServ seemed to be easier, faster and less controversial. So that question of EOF Apache 1.3 is beyond this case. But yes there are from time to time some discussions which might lead to it. > Btw, I'm assuming this is meant for Minor binding, as its not > appropriate IMO for a Patch release. Correct. Petr
