Re: Forming an opinion

[Bernd Eilers]

Hi there !

 How about splitting this list into two lists:
 tomcat-dev for those interested in seeing
 the development of Tomcat advance and
 tomcat-flames for those arguing all the time
 about nothing relevant ;-)

Well as I do not have commiter status this doesn't count but:

+1

Reason: splitting the list is better for following the technical 
discussion. The alternative would be that some people on this list might 
get more and more into personal mail-kill-file rules of readers although 
they might 'also' have some intresting technical suggestions and 
comments.

I think that the most important thing of the implementation itself is 
compliance to open standards and thus I would also like to suggest to add 
more references to relevant RFC's involved and similar technical 
background material to the web pages. 

Examples: 

rfc2616 Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1
rfc2617 HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication
rfc2518 HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring – WEBDAV.

...


And http://jakarta.apache.org/site/communication.html is obviously 
missing a link to http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt ;-)


Having guidelines and roles is a good thing for such a project, but 
compared to the amount of technical background information the jakarta 
webpage and this list contains to much of that stuff.

As a regular reader of this list I would be much happier to see a 
discussion about which concepts of both currently available development 
tracks are usesful to be merged into one of the next main tracks than 
endless discussions about nameing things. Guys most of us on this list 
should be developers not marketing managers, please create a separate 
lists for people to discuss things like 'That graphic doesn't look good' 
and 'Mother that bad boy has shown me his tongue' as most readers here do 
not care much about such 'importent' problems. Oh by the way: What about 
using not tomcat-sandbox ?


Back to the technical questions:

Are there any plans to integrate something like the 3.x ServletFacade 
mechanism into the 4.x track , or is there already something like that ?

 Regards,
 Gummi Haf

Please redirect follow-ups to this mail to /dev/null

Regards,
Bernd



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Webdav Servlet

[Bernd Eilers]

 Hi,

Hi there !

 today I looked through the webdav servlet. Now I have two questions: On
 an OPTIONS request the header is not containing the "MS-Author-Via: DAV"
 line. 

I just had a brief look at ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2518.txt

and guess what I could not find any reference for an "MS-Author-Via: DAV"
HTTP header field being required by a WebDAV implementation.

Could you please provide a reference to where in the WebDAV related 
standards this has been defined ?

Section 9.1 of rfc2518 though very clearly describes a required DAV: 
Header that could be used by WebDAV clients to detect wether a resource 
is a WebDAV resource.

 So the MS webdav tools will try the frontpage extensions first.

That's a problem of the MS webdav tools, not using the "DAV:" header for 
detection but instead expecting a Microsoft Products only non 
standardized header parameter, isn't it ?

 If this header line would be added to (unneeded) requests would be 
omitted.

 [...]


 Bye,
 Ulf

Bye,
Bernd


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]