Re: Missed vote

[Pier Fumagalli]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I believe this can't be a 'consensus' vote - at least the proposal
> for the code organization was a 'majority' vote with multiple
> choices. 
> 
> This is how the repository was organized before, xml.apache.org
> is doing the same for SAX and DOM and JAXP ( in xmlApis.jar ).
> Spliting it in 2 jars will create confusion - so I'm
> -1 on spliting them up unless the JSR expert groups decide
> so. 

The JSR expert group has _no_ whatsoever legislative power on OUR cvs
repository. The code in there and the repository itself are OWNED by the
ASF, therefore the ASF decides...

Let's not confuse cows with tomatoes...

If you want to hear about the decision of the "only and official" ASF
representative to the Servlet specification JSR (look, hey, it's me) and
therefore I believe legally the "responsible" one (yeah, right), there you
go:

 SPLIT THE TWO REPOSITORIES 

Thank you! :)

Pier

--
[Perl] combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp:  a billion of different
sublanguages in  one monolithic executable.  It combines the power of C with
the readability of PostScript. [Jamie Zawinski - DNA Lounge - San Francisco]


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Missed vote

[costinm]

On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:

> on 7/17/02 3:50 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > As I said, xml.apache.org is packaging 3 APIs from 3 different and
> > unrelated sources in a single repo and jar ( DOM, SAX, JAXP ), and
> > that was discussed and aproved by both xalan and xerces communities.
> 
> Those 3 api's are copies of the originals placed into a single repo. Again,
> that is different than two different API's original source code stored in
> the same repo.

DOM and SAX are copies, while JAXP is not. And the servlet and jsp 
content are actually not under our control and more than JAXP, SAX
or DOM.

I'll withdraw my -1 - I think code organisation is decided by 
majority vote, same for 'naming' and same for releases ( and I already
voted on one of the 3 choices )


Costin



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Missed vote

[Craig R. McClanahan]

On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:

> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 15:30:05 -0700
> From: Jon Scott Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: tomcat-dev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Missed vote
>
> on 7/17/02 2:47 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > so I'm
> > -1 on spliting them up unless the JSR expert groups decide
> > so.
>
> As Craig mentioned on the JSR 154 list, this isn't a JSR decision and I
> wasn't talking about splitting the jar's up...Sun can distribute whatever
> they want...I'm talking about splitting the repo's up. If you want to make
> the build system produce a single .jar file from the two repo's then that is
> fine.
>

The same works in reverse -- setting up one repository that only creates
two separate JARs is perfectly feasible :-).

> We are also talking about the next version of the Servlet API (5.0) which is
> based on the work of JSR 154...not JSR 053. JSR 154 is specific to the
> Servlet API and is not working on JSP. So, it no longer makes sense to have
> the two together for the next revision of the Servlet API.
>
>  2 API's, 2 JSR's, 2 CVS repo's.
>
> We are at a -1 stalemate. Should we involve the Jakarta PMC now?
>

I don't see where the stalemate is.

The original proposal that you're voting against had approximately 12 +1s
and the voting was closed on schedule.  Retroactively opposing something
that already passed doesn't seem likely to accomplish anything.  You might
want to make a formal proposal to change the previous decision.

As a PMC member, I can tell you what my comment would be if it came up
there -- "go tell TOMCAT-DEV to figure it out".

> -jon

Craig


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Missed vote

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 7/17/02 3:50 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> As I said, xml.apache.org is packaging 3 APIs from 3 different and
> unrelated sources in a single repo and jar ( DOM, SAX, JAXP ), and
> that was discussed and aproved by both xalan and xerces communities.

Those 3 api's are copies of the originals placed into a single repo. Again,
that is different than two different API's original source code stored in
the same repo.

> I don't care too much about 2 repositories, but I do
> care about a single jar. And I don't like seeing the voting system
> abused.

As I said, I don't care about the single .jar.

The primary issue here is the use of the same repo for both of the next
generation Servlet and JSP api's.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Missed vote

[costinm]

On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:

> We are also talking about the next version of the Servlet API (5.0) which is
> based on the work of JSR 154...not JSR 053. JSR 154 is specific to the
> Servlet API and is not working on JSP. So, it no longer makes sense to have
> the two together for the next revision of the Servlet API.
> 
>  2 API's, 2 JSR's, 2 CVS repo's.
> 

As I said, xml.apache.org is packaging 3 APIs from 3 different and 
unrelated sources in a single repo and jar ( DOM, SAX, JAXP ), and 
that was discussed and aproved by both xalan and xerces communities.
And we had allways distributed the 2 in a single jar and used 
a single repository.  


> We are at a -1 stalemate. Should we involve the Jakarta PMC now?

As I said, I think this is a majority vote. I don't think naming
or packaging or releases or code organisation can be decided by consensus, 
especially when there are multiple choices. And the current organisation
got a pretty sensible majority.

Besides, the current practice is to use a single repo/jar, there
is no change proposed. You can't -1 a non-change, I think. 

I don't care too much about 2 repositories, but I do 
care about a single jar. And I don't like seeing the voting system 
abused.

You can obviously raise the issue with the PMC.

Costin


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Missed vote

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 7/17/02 2:47 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> so I'm
> -1 on spliting them up unless the JSR expert groups decide
> so. 

As Craig mentioned on the JSR 154 list, this isn't a JSR decision and I
wasn't talking about splitting the jar's up...Sun can distribute whatever
they want...I'm talking about splitting the repo's up. If you want to make
the build system produce a single .jar file from the two repo's then that is
fine.

We are also talking about the next version of the Servlet API (5.0) which is
based on the work of JSR 154...not JSR 053. JSR 154 is specific to the
Servlet API and is not working on JSP. So, it no longer makes sense to have
the two together for the next revision of the Servlet API.

 2 API's, 2 JSR's, 2 CVS repo's.

We are at a -1 stalemate. Should we involve the Jakarta PMC now?

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Missed vote

[costinm]

On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:

> > Until the JSP 2.0 spec is changed, it make less sense for us to
> > have two separate repos.  (It just make more sense to put
> > javax.servlet.jsp.tagext.TagInfo with javax.servlet classes).
> 
> They can be in separate repo's with the same package name.
> 
> If Sun wants to distribute a combined .jar file from their website, then
> that is fine. 
> 
> But when the software lives on the Jakarta site, it should be in separate
> repo's.
> 
> As a committer on both Tomcat and Servlet API, co-founder of Jakarta, as
> well as a member of the ASF and JSR 053/154, here is my -1 based on the
> reasons I have already stated (and which 2 other people agreed with me on).

I believe this can't be a 'consensus' vote - at least the proposal
for the code organization was a 'majority' vote with multiple 
choices. 

This is how the repository was organized before, xml.apache.org
is doing the same for SAX and DOM and JAXP ( in xmlApis.jar ). 
Spliting it in 2 jars will create confusion - so I'm
-1 on spliting them up unless the JSR expert groups decide
so. 



Costin





--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Missed vote

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 7/17/02 1:30 PM, "Kin-Man Chung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I am sympathetic to Jon's view on separating servlet and JSP API
> and repositories.
> 
> One result of the separation would make it likely that package names
> for JSP 2.0 API may change.  JSP2.0 is now in public review, so it may
> be important to raise this issue before the door is closed.
> 
> Until the JSP 2.0 spec is changed, it make less sense for us to
> have two separate repos.  (It just make more sense to put
> javax.servlet.jsp.tagext.TagInfo with javax.servlet classes).

They can be in separate repo's with the same package name.

If Sun wants to distribute a combined .jar file from their website, then
that is fine. 

But when the software lives on the Jakarta site, it should be in separate
repo's.

As a committer on both Tomcat and Servlet API, co-founder of Jakarta, as
well as a member of the ASF and JSR 053/154, here is my -1 based on the
reasons I have already stated (and which 2 other people agreed with me on).

Please put the files in separate cvs repo's.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Missed vote

[Kin-Man Chung]

I am sympathetic to Jon's view on separating servlet and JSP API
and repositories.

One result of the separation would make it likely that package names
for JSP 2.0 API may change.  JSP2.0 is now in public review, so it may
be important to raise this issue before the door is closed.

Until the JSP 2.0 spec is changed, it make less sense for us to
have two separate repos.  (It just make more sense to put
javax.servlet.jsp.tagext.TagInfo with javax.servlet classes).


> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 20:28:43 +0200
> From: Paulo Gaspar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Missed vote
> To: Tomcat Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> Importance: Normal
> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> X-MSMail-priority: Normal
> 
> For what is worth, I think Jon is 100% right on this one.
> 
> And he was cristal clear about the reasons too.
> 
> Regards,
> Paulo
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 12:43 AM
> > To: tomcat-dev
> > Subject: Re: Missed vote
> >
> >
> > on 7/16/02 1:14 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > What's so painful about a ten-line build.xml target that creates a
> > > separate JAR file with just the javax.servlet and javax.servlet.http API
> > > classes, if that's what you need?
> > >
> > > Sharing a CVS repository has little or nothing to do with how many
> > > distributable outputs you create.  On the other hand, having
> > both servlet
> > > and JSP APIs in a single JAR file is quite useful to a very large number
> > > of existing Tomcat (and other container) users, so it should be
> > available
> > > also.
> > >
> > > Craig
> >
> > I used to say the same thing about Turbine and Torque. You could
> > use Torque
> > without using any of the Turbine code...yet people refused to use Torque
> > because it was packaged in the same jar file as Turbine.
> >
> > I also think that keeping two different API's in the same .jar file is a
> > terrible idea. Think about all the issues we have/had with the XML api's.
> > The Servlet API is also on a different release cycle than the JSP API.
> >
> > Also, having things in the same repo makes it to easy to create
> > dependencies
> > between the two API's...that is why the JSR's were split as well.
> >
> > As Pier said, 2 API's, 2 JSR's, 2 CVS repo's.
> >
> > Consider this my strong -1.
> >
> > -jon
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

RE: Missed vote

[Paulo Gaspar]

For what is worth, I think Jon is 100% right on this one.

And he was cristal clear about the reasons too.

Regards,
Paulo

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 12:43 AM
> To: tomcat-dev
> Subject: Re: Missed vote
>
>
> on 7/16/02 1:14 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What's so painful about a ten-line build.xml target that creates a
> > separate JAR file with just the javax.servlet and javax.servlet.http API
> > classes, if that's what you need?
> >
> > Sharing a CVS repository has little or nothing to do with how many
> > distributable outputs you create.  On the other hand, having
> both servlet
> > and JSP APIs in a single JAR file is quite useful to a very large number
> > of existing Tomcat (and other container) users, so it should be
> available
> > also.
> >
> > Craig
>
> I used to say the same thing about Turbine and Torque. You could
> use Torque
> without using any of the Turbine code...yet people refused to use Torque
> because it was packaged in the same jar file as Turbine.
>
> I also think that keeping two different API's in the same .jar file is a
> terrible idea. Think about all the issues we have/had with the XML api's.
> The Servlet API is also on a different release cycle than the JSP API.
>
> Also, having things in the same repo makes it to easy to create
> dependencies
> between the two API's...that is why the JSR's were split as well.
>
> As Pier said, 2 API's, 2 JSR's, 2 CVS repo's.
>
> Consider this my strong -1.
>
> -jon
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Missed vote

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 7/16/02 1:14 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What's so painful about a ten-line build.xml target that creates a
> separate JAR file with just the javax.servlet and javax.servlet.http API
> classes, if that's what you need?
> 
> Sharing a CVS repository has little or nothing to do with how many
> distributable outputs you create.  On the other hand, having both servlet
> and JSP APIs in a single JAR file is quite useful to a very large number
> of existing Tomcat (and other container) users, so it should be available
> also.
> 
> Craig

I used to say the same thing about Turbine and Torque. You could use Torque
without using any of the Turbine code...yet people refused to use Torque
because it was packaged in the same jar file as Turbine.

I also think that keeping two different API's in the same .jar file is a
terrible idea. Think about all the issues we have/had with the XML api's.
The Servlet API is also on a different release cycle than the JSP API.

Also, having things in the same repo makes it to easy to create dependencies
between the two API's...that is why the JSR's were split as well.

As Pier said, 2 API's, 2 JSR's, 2 CVS repo's.

Consider this my strong -1.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Missed vote

[Pier Fumagalli]

Craig R. McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
> 
>> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:56:40 -0700
>> From: Jon Scott Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: tomcat-dev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Missed vote
>> 
>> Arg. I missed the vote where the Servlet API and JSP classes were going to
>> be stored in the same repo. Is there any way that I can -1 that after the
>> fact?
>> 
>> Several of us have worked hard over the years to completely separate the
>> Servlet API from the JSP API for various valid reasons (including the fact
>> that some of us don't like JSP).
>> 
>> This fight came to an end when Sun decided to create separation of the two
>> API's by having separate JSR's. Now, it seems that we are moving backwards
>> again by having the two API's stored in the same repo and now that I found
>> out that that has happened, I would love to try to stop it from going any
>> further.
>> 
>> What can we do here?
> 
> What's so painful about a ten-line build.xml target that creates a
> separate JAR file with just the javax.servlet and javax.servlet.http API
> classes, if that's what you need?
> 
> Sharing a CVS repository has little or nothing to do with how many
> distributable outputs you create.  On the other hand, having both servlet
> and JSP APIs in a single JAR file is quite useful to a very large number
> of existing Tomcat (and other container) users, so it should be available
> also.

Logically it's more confusing to see servlet.jar to have both. Especially
now that they are _two_ separate JSRs. Two APIs, IMO, two JARs, but as I
replied earlier, it's not my problem anymore.

Pier

--
[Perl] combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp:  a billion of different
sublanguages in  one monolithic executable.  It combines the power of C with
the readability of PostScript. [Jamie Zawinski - DNA Lounge - San Francisco]


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Missed vote

[Craig R. McClanahan]

On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:

> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:56:40 -0700
> From: Jon Scott Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: tomcat-dev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Missed vote
>
> Arg. I missed the vote where the Servlet API and JSP classes were going to
> be stored in the same repo. Is there any way that I can -1 that after the
> fact?
>
> Several of us have worked hard over the years to completely separate the
> Servlet API from the JSP API for various valid reasons (including the fact
> that some of us don't like JSP).
>
> This fight came to an end when Sun decided to create separation of the two
> API's by having separate JSR's. Now, it seems that we are moving backwards
> again by having the two API's stored in the same repo and now that I found
> out that that has happened, I would love to try to stop it from going any
> further.
>
> What can we do here?
>

What's so painful about a ten-line build.xml target that creates a
separate JAR file with just the javax.servlet and javax.servlet.http API
classes, if that's what you need?

Sharing a CVS repository has little or nothing to do with how many
distributable outputs you create.  On the other hand, having both servlet
and JSP APIs in a single JAR file is quite useful to a very large number
of existing Tomcat (and other container) users, so it should be available
also.

> -jon

Craig


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: