[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From my end user (production) point of vue, I need the fastest servlet-engine
> with a robust WEB Server (Apache) connector. Like many I select ApacheJServ
> and next TC 3.x because there was mod_jserv (load-balancing and
> fault-tolerance).
If yo
Gomez Henri wrote:
> [snip]
> I know it's an open source project and everyone can contribute but there will
> be 2 concurrents projects at Apache. May be not a good thing but will help give
> a substantial emulation between 3.3 and 4.0 teams. 4.0 appears to be a Sun
> Project (most of the active
> > Your planning is to release TC 4.0 for late December or early January
> ?-)
> > What about Tomcat 3.2 release ? early December ?
> >
>
> There have been several bug fixes posted for 3.2b8 that I want to
> evaluate, but
> no new critical bugs. Therefore, my inclination will be to cut a final
> > It seems clear for you that Tomcat 3.2 (and the full 3.x line)
> > are allready products in end of life.
>
> I don't know how you reached that conclusion, but I'm sure it's wrong -
> tomcat 3.x is far from over :-)
I just noticed that many of tomcat developers seems to focus only on TC 3.2
A few short comments intermixed below.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [snip]
> Many of the ajp13 bugs seems to be fixed (even the dreaded ajp13 +
> RequestDispatcher).
>
That's great! Even if you don't get them fixed in time for 3.2 final, rolling out
a maintenance release with those fixes would b
> Whaoo, Tomcat 4.1. Allready ?
> But what about support for Tomcat 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3 (bug fixes)
>
> It seems clear for you that Tomcat 3.2 (and the full 3.x line)
> are allready products in end of life.
I don't know how you reached that conclusion, but I'm sure it's wrong -
tomcat 3.x
> * The servlet container code in 3.2 is *substantially* better
> than the servlet container code in 3.1 in terms of spec conformance,
> number of bugs, functionality, and performance.
Thanks. But wait to see 3.3, it'll have quite a few nice surprises :-)
> For any other scenario, you owe i
Glenn Nielsen wrote:
>
>
> Just waiting on the green light that says mod_warp is ready to test.
mod_webapp :) Basically the module and the library are done... I stil
have a coupl of small issues with the WARP adapter, but they're going
away soon...
Pier
--
Pier Fumagalli <[EMAIL PROTE
"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
>
> See intermixed below.
>
>
> On 4.0 stability? I don't think so. You should consider me to be biased
> (Catalina has been *my* baby, after all :-), but I've seen the insides of 3.2
> and 4.0 in a lot more detail than I ever hoped to over the last month. I have
See intermixed below.
GOMEZ Henri wrote:
> >I plan to cut a "milestone 5" release of Tomcat 4.0 this coming Friday (or,
> >worst case, on Saturday). As a sneak preview of coming attractions, the
> >following cool stuff will be included:
>
> Nice...
>
> >* Initial version of the web connector fo
Paulo Gaspar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I like the harmony we had in this list during the last few weeks between the
> main defenders of Tomcat 3.x and of Tomcat 4. I would like it to stay that
> way.
>
> Both lines have its usefulness (3.3 included in the pack). We are having an
> effort on
> -Original Message-
> From: Pier P. Fumagalli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 01:25
>
> GOMEZ Henri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > It seems clear for you that Tomcat 3.2 (and the full 3.x line)
> > are allready products in end of life.
>
> Don't want to
GOMEZ Henri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - mod_warp ? Will you include documentation about it ?
> Will it support load-balancing and fault-tolerance à la mod_jserv/mod_jk ?
Mod_webapp or something like it...
No and No... Initial version doesn't mean FULL...
> I'd like to see if we could use i
>I plan to cut a "milestone 5" release of Tomcat 4.0 this coming Friday (or,
>worst case, on Saturday). As a sneak preview of coming attractions, the
>following cool stuff will be included:
Nice...
>* Initial version of the web connector for Apache
- mod_warp ? Will you include documentation a
> > I would like that by default it doesn't do any kind of pattern matching
at
> > all (unless one is explicitely specified), and just output the standard
log.
>
>
> You're talking about the AccessLogValve itself, right?
Yes.
> You want an
> AccessLogValve that doesn't do any fancy pattern stuff
Remy Maucherat wrote:
>> Just so you know, I've been looking at the AccessLogValve,
>> and am working on getting it into shape to be re-enabled
>> in the default config. In the process, I'm writing a Valve
>> tester so we can test and benchmark Valves. It's already
>> running, but it's not qu
> Just so you know, I've been looking at the AccessLogValve,
> and am working on getting it into shape to be re-enabled
> in the default config. In the process, I'm writing a Valve
> tester so we can test and benchmark Valves. It's already
> running, but it's not quite ready for release yet..
I
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I plan to cut a "milestone 5" release of Tomcat 4.0 this coming Friday (or,
> worst case, on Saturday).
*clap* *clap*
> As a sneak preview of coming attractions, the
> following cool stuff will be included:
>
> * Initial version of the web connecto
Folks,
I plan to cut a "milestone 5" release of Tomcat 4.0 this coming Friday (or,
worst case, on Saturday). As a sneak preview of coming attractions, the
following cool stuff will be included:
* Initial version of the web connector for Apache
* Substantial performance optimizations on the
s
19 matches
Mail list logo
