> on 5/10/02 4:42 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well, it is a result of the new threading in the sense that now it is
> > possible to not block. If you want to bock there - it is quite easy to
> > code this :-)
> >
> > I think returning 503 is a correct behavior too - it
on 5/10/02 4:42 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, it is a result of the new threading in the sense that now it is
> possible to not block. If you want to bock there - it is quite easy to
> code this :-)
>
> I think returning 503 is a correct behavior too - it means 'reso
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
> My only semi-major complaint about Coyote (and I told Remy about this in
> person) is that the container now returns 503 errors until the servlet is
> started. Before, it would block (not quickly return a 503) until the servlet
> is finished startin
on 5/10/02 3:57 PM, "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I plan to release Coyote 1.0b9 at the same time as Tomcat 4.0.4 Beta 3
> (enough delays, I'm doing it later this afternoon, hopefully).
>
> The idea is to have TC 4.0.4b3 be a last beta before final, and Coyote 1.0
> would also be
On Fri, 10 May 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote:
> The idea is to have TC 4.0.4b3 be a last beta before final, and Coyote 1.0
> would also be released at the same time. I don't know how much this is
> compatible with whatever work still needs to be done in JK2. If it's not,
> then Coyote 1.0 will be re
I plan to release Coyote 1.0b9 at the same time as Tomcat 4.0.4 Beta 3
(enough delays, I'm doing it later this afternoon, hopefully).
The idea is to have TC 4.0.4b3 be a last beta before final, and Coyote 1.0
would also be released at the same time. I don't know how much this is
compatible with w
