Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
Pier Fumagalli wrote: On 9/12/02 23:58 Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But in this case you keep making false statements, and not only here. It should be quite easy to look for a [VOTE] or [PROPOSAL] that you made and was voted on tomcat-dev. I swear that _LOVE_ my mates... My friend Tonia, who's apparently better than me in getting out old posts, actually _FOUND_ it! :-) Thank you :-) And for your own viewing pleasure, that's it... (OK, it didn't have the [PROPOSAL] tag, but the wording was in there, c'mon, be flexible! :-) Yes, ok, that's so true... I also vented the idea that _MAYBE_ (but maybe) someone could have reimplemented the Standard* classes, but WHAT THE HELL? All I said I wanted was (quote myself) more or less what Jon does for Scarab... I said that IN JUNE... JUNE for damn sake... And somewhere along this thread when it after degenerated in the usual flame war that always happens when something needs to be done you said If possible, please also change the name - unless ASF gives you permission to use tomcat name in your product. And now _I_ am the idiot who makes false statements... Damn... I _knew_ I had a reason to be upset... Tonia, thanks, I owe you two favours for this one (next time I'm in the US!) Pier Original Message Subject: Re: 5.0 proposal Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 21:49:51 +0100 From: Pier Fumagalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: That's why counts where not right on my side of the border... I don't recall vetoing the proposal... I just complained vehemently that I'd prefer to see 4.0 out of the door and stable rather than a 4.1 and a 5.0... 4.0 is out of door - the release happened long ago. So did 4.0.1... 4.0.4. 4.1 is getting close - and it should be more stable and better than 4.0.4. And 5.0 should be more stable and better than 4.1 and 3.3. And 6.0 will probably be better than 5.0. If you are interested in maintaining and improving 4.0.4 - just volunteer as release manager for the branch, you have my +1 on it. I can't be a RM for 4.0.4 because I would simply remove 70% of the code, and kiddies would start crying their butts off because they don't have the manager application, or JSP support :) But if anyone is interested I'd like to explore the opportunity of a Tomcat-HA (high-availability or hard-edition), based on 4.0 without the crap in there, and straightening out the request-response model... Simply, take the Catalina classes, and remove piles of useless stuff (more or less what Jon does for Scarab, but to a greater degree, maybe even reimplementing some of the Standard* classes). I remember perfectly, and this Tomcat-HA was a complete joke. You proposed a new implementation of the Catalina classes, which doesn't make sense given the current Tomcat state (empty promises again, like what we ended up with mod_webapp, which was *the* main reason for many people not to adopt Tomcat 4.x). Here, Costin is proposing a new distribution based on the same binary. Huge difference. Like the httpd, I'd prefer having a full distribution of all safe (yes, Jasper is safe) and generally useful modules. Experienced users can tweak the configuration to their liking, and it is easy to do, but the beginners get an easy to run environment which does what they need (and obviously a lot more, since you'd want the distribution to fill the needs of 95% of users). Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
On 10/12/02 8:40 am, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I remember perfectly, and this Tomcat-HA was a complete joke. You proposed a new implementation of the Catalina classes, which doesn't make sense given the current Tomcat state That's what I was asking... more or less what Jon does for Scarab, but to a greater degree, maybe even reimplementing some of the Standard* classes It's in the archives... Pier :-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
On 10/12/02 8:40 am, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Like the httpd, I'd prefer having a full distribution of all safe (yes, Jasper is safe) and generally useful modules. Experienced users can tweak the configuration to their liking, and it is easy to do, but the beginners get an easy to run environment which does what they need (and obviously a lot more, since you'd want the distribution to fill the needs of 95% of users). There is one big huge difference... Modules are DSOs, if you don't enable them in your httpd.conf, they don't get loaded, they don't get used Disabling all of them can be done by sed 's/^LoadModule/#LoadModule/g'. If you get a binary distribution... (which, btw, doesn't enable most of them, it just _ships_ them in the same bundle...) If you don't get a binary distribution, when I build, I have a lot of tiny --enable and --disable flags... I can _choose_ what to build, what to install, what goes on my machine... This doesn't happen with Tomcat and it SUCKS ASS. :-) Don't compare yourself to HTTPD, learn from them, that's the only thing you can do... :-) (suggestion from someone who has been around long enough). New signature! :-) Pier -- [...] mod_webapp, which was *the* main reason for many people not to adopt Tomcat 4.x - Remy MaucheratWorks for me - Pier Fumagalli -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
Pier Fumagalli wrote: On 10/12/02 8:40 am, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is one big huge difference... Modules are DSOs, if you don't enable them in your httpd.conf, they don't get loaded, they don't get used Disabling all of them can be done by sed 's/^LoadModule/#LoadModule/g'. If you get a binary distribution... (which, btw, doesn't enable most of them, it just _ships_ them in the same bundle...) If you don't get a binary distribution, when I build, I have a lot of tiny --enable and --disable flags... I can _choose_ what to build, what to install, what goes on my machine... This doesn't happen with Tomcat and it SUCKS ASS. :-) Don't compare yourself to HTTPD, learn from them, that's the only thing you can do... :-) (suggestion from someone who has been around long enough). Yes, thanks. I don't see how the mechanism is very different from the Java CL and the Tomcat config files. If you don't enable features in conf/server.xml and conf/web.xml, then the classes (which comprises the modules) don't get loaded, and the code is never run. Not all classes get loaded by default, but all binaries are present. This also looks similar. However, there's no convinient way to script enabling/disabling features, but I think that's more because we use XML, and its free form syntax. Otherwise, for example: disable the Jasper module = remove stuff in conf/web.xml. New signature! :-) Great. [...] mod_webapp, which was *the* main reason for many people not to adopt Tomcat 4.x - Remy MaucheratWorks for me - Pier Fumagalli Lol. Yes, we all know webapp works for you (and hopefully other Solaris users). The problem is others. Couldn't you have tried to work with others anyway ? (I did try, and it didn't hurt that much; I don't think Tomcat got worse because of Bill's and Costin's contributions, quite the contrary actually) Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
Pier Fumagalli wrote: On 10/12/02 8:40 am, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Like the httpd, I'd prefer having a full distribution of all safe (yes, Jasper is safe) and generally useful modules. Experienced users can tweak the configuration to their liking, and it is easy to do, but the beginners get an easy to run environment which does what they need (and obviously a lot more, since you'd want the distribution to fill the needs of 95% of users). There is one big huge difference... Modules are DSOs, if you don't enable them in your httpd.conf, they don't get loaded, they don't get used Disabling all of them can be done by sed 's/^LoadModule/#LoadModule/g'. If you get a binary distribution... (which, btw, doesn't enable most of them, it just _ships_ them in the same bundle...) If you don't get a binary distribution, when I build, I have a lot of tiny --enable and --disable flags... I can _choose_ what to build, what to install, what goes on my machine... This doesn't happen with Tomcat and it SUCKS ASS. :-) It's exactly what SHOULD BE DONE in a modular approach of TC 5. A small core with essential functionalities, and a bunch of modules, which will live in modules dir or activated if module-xxx.xml found in conf directory of tomcat. Don't compare yourself to HTTPD, learn from them, that's the only thing you can do... :-) (suggestion from someone who has been around long enough). I learn HTTPD everyday, and yesterday I even correct mod_webapp for Apache 2.0 ! New signature! :-) Pier nananere -- [...] mod_webapp, which was *the* main reason for many people not to adopt Tomcat 4.x - Remy MaucheratWorks for me - Pier Fumagalli -- 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: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
Martin Algesten wrote: This is the soundest idea I've heard so far. Multiple distributions sounds like disaster area to me. I currently think it is hard enough for a new user to decide Tomcat3/Tomcat4.x/Tomcat5 when presented with the choices. If there in addition to that is Tomcat4 lite, Tomcat4 all Tomcat5 lite disaster, don't go there. I want one distribution with --enable --disable for source compilation and if I choose binary I can edit the config files (server.xml or whatever) to remove the options I don't need. Exactly like httpd (sort of)... I really cannot believe I could agree with you on something ;-) Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
This is the soundest idea I've heard so far. Multiple distributions sounds like disaster area to me. I currently think it is hard enough for a new user to decide Tomcat3/Tomcat4.x/Tomcat5 when presented with the choices. If there in addition to that is Tomcat4 lite, Tomcat4 all Tomcat5 lite disaster, don't go there. I want one distribution with --enable --disable for source compilation and if I choose binary I can edit the config files (server.xml or whatever) to remove the options I don't need. Exactly like httpd (sort of)... M -Original Message- From: Henri Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 10 December 2002 10:35 To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 ) It's exactly what SHOULD BE DONE in a modular approach of TC 5. A small core with essential functionalities, and a bunch of modules, which will live in modules dir or activated if module-xxx.xml found in conf directory of tomcat. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
-Original Message- From: Remy Maucherat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 10 December 2002 10:55 To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 ) I really cannot believe I could agree with you on something ;-) Remy I might have strong opinions and seize every possible opportunity to ram them down others throats, but I am not completely unreasonable ;-) M -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
Pier Fumagalli wrote: On 9/12/02 23:58 Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But in this case you keep making false statements, and not only here. It should be quite easy to look for a [VOTE] or [PROPOSAL] that you made and was voted on tomcat-dev. I swear that _LOVE_ my mates... My friend Tonia, who's apparently better than me in getting out old posts, actually _FOUND_ it! :-) Thank you :-) And for your own viewing pleasure, that's it... Did your friend Tonia also found the 3 +1 votes ? Can someone explain to Pier that: 1. revolution can't be named tomcat-whatever 2. tomcat releases need a majority vote and at least 3 +1 votes. I didn't say you can't name your stuff jerry - or anything else. And my comment on naming it tomcat-high-availability was on the code that you done outside of tomcat. Do you still think it was ok to do so ? You can check with the board or whoever else in apache about that - or try to release an apache httpd - high-availability. There are many proposals for minimal tomcat - and one of the main divergences between 3.3 and 4.0 was the number of features. ( and it turned both position had positive and negative aspects - 4.0 features attracted probably more users than 3.3 minimality ). You may remember the 1M tomcat and the discussion about supporting J2ME with 3.3. So don't tell me you invented the minimal tomcat 4 months ago. When working in a community the behavior is quite important and does have an effect on others and yourself.( that's true for Jon - and for myself :-) One thing we learned is that a proposal needs more than some technical benefits - it also need buy-in from the community. That's how Apache works - if you don't know that. Costin (OK, it didn't have the [PROPOSAL] tag, but the wording was in there, c'mon, be flexible! :-) Yes, ok, that's so true... I also vented the idea that _MAYBE_ (but maybe) someone could have reimplemented the Standard* classes, but WHAT THE HELL? All I said I wanted was (quote myself) more or less what Jon does for Scarab... I said that IN JUNE... JUNE for damn sake... And somewhere along this thread when it after degenerated in the usual flame war that always happens when something needs to be done you said If possible, please also change the name - unless ASF gives you permission to use tomcat name in your product. And now _I_ am the idiot who makes false statements... Damn... I _knew_ I had a reason to be upset... Tonia, thanks, I owe you two favours for this one (next time I'm in the US!) Pier Original Message Subject: Re: 5.0 proposal Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 21:49:51 +0100 From: Pier Fumagalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: That's why counts where not right on my side of the border... I don't recall vetoing the proposal... I just complained vehemently that I'd prefer to see 4.0 out of the door and stable rather than a 4.1 and a 5.0... 4.0 is out of door - the release happened long ago. So did 4.0.1... 4.0.4. 4.1 is getting close - and it should be more stable and better than 4.0.4. And 5.0 should be more stable and better than 4.1 and 3.3. And 6.0 will probably be better than 5.0. If you are interested in maintaining and improving 4.0.4 - just volunteer as release manager for the branch, you have my +1 on it. I can't be a RM for 4.0.4 because I would simply remove 70% of the code, and kiddies would start crying their butts off because they don't have the manager application, or JSP support :) But if anyone is interested I'd like to explore the opportunity of a Tomcat-HA (high-availability or hard-edition), based on 4.0 without the crap in there, and straightening out the request-response model... Simply, take the Catalina classes, and remove piles of useless stuff (more or less what Jon does for Scarab, but to a greater degree, maybe even reimplementing some of the Standard* classes). I can't veto as I don't really care how you want to spend your evenings and stuff... I don't think you can 'veto' a long term plan or release. AFAIK it's a majority vote. Veto in terms of -1ing it. Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
Remy Maucherat wrote: Martin Algesten wrote: This is the soundest idea I've heard so far. Multiple distributions sounds like disaster area to me. I currently think it is hard enough for a new user to decide Tomcat3/Tomcat4.x/Tomcat5 when presented with the choices. If there in addition to that is Tomcat4 lite, Tomcat4 all Tomcat5 lite disaster, don't go there. I want one distribution with --enable --disable for source compilation and if I choose binary I can edit the config files (server.xml or whatever) to remove the options I don't need. Exactly like httpd (sort of)... I really cannot believe I could agree with you on something ;-) Don't know what you two disagree on - but I think this is a very good point. Consider my minimal tomcat distribution dead - for now. I'm not sure about one distribution with --enable and --disable, but I think one distribution with different profiles ( and the option to create a profile that includes what you need and nothing else ) is the best choice. And it seems JMX plus some class loader magic plus some config can do that. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
Costin Manolache wrote: Since things may get confusing around here, I would like to have an official vote on my prior proposal. This is the list of included features: Libs: - JMX - JAAS - JNDI - digester ( and beanutils, collections it needs ). - modeler - ant ( used for startup and automation of some tasks ) - commons-logging When/if the JNDI-based abstraction of config files is ready we'll not need digester - but most likely it'll still be required by modeler, and also by jasper, so I don't think we can remove it. Tomcat: - subset of catalina ( non-deprecated interfaces and base impl that is required for tomcat to work ). - coyote - tomcat-util - http11/jk2 - all valves/etc that are required for tomcat to operate. - naming - jasper ( at least jasper runtime - but probably the whole thing ). Votes: [ ] +1 I like the idea, I might help [ ] -1 I don't like the idea, I won't help. +0,5 : I like the idea, but have little time to help these days. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
Remy Maucherat wrote: Votes: [ ] +1 I like the idea, I might help [ ] -1 I don't like the idea, I won't help. I'll have to vote -1 until the other vote completes, and then, I'll either be: - +1 if Jon's proposal doesn't pass - -1 if Jon proposal is accepted, unless Jasper is removed from the list I think this is at least unfair. I started the discussion on minimal tomcat before Jon's vote. I was trying to get a consensus and opinions to shape the proposal. Jon jumped in with the vote. I don't think who proposes the vote first wins is the best solution, I don't think we are even talking about the same thing ( Jon wants a JSR154-only, I'm proposing a minimal tomcat ). I don't see why a vote on Jon's proposal would affect my proposal ( or any future vote ). As I said, I'd like to limit to 2 maximum the amount of Tomcat binary distributions (I think two is too much, actually, but still is acceptable). Then make a proposal that maximum 2 tomcat binary distribution should be allowed. But even in this case - I think I am allowed to propose that one of the distributions ( the small one ) includes jasper runtime and is not called jsr154 only. Even if Jon's vote is passing. If your -1 vote on minimal tomcat ( that includes jasper ) is based on concerns that we'll have too many distributions - I agree it's a valid reason, and I know you don't need a reason to vote -1. I have no problem with a vote on minimal tomcat to not include jasper compiler ( or even jasper runtime ) - if this gets a majority of votes than it can happen. The reverse is a bit more difficult - i.e. we can't include jasper in a JSR154 only ( as Jon proposed ) Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
Costin Manolache wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: Votes: [ ] +1 I like the idea, I might help [ ] -1 I don't like the idea, I won't help. I'll have to vote -1 until the other vote completes, and then, I'll either be: - +1 if Jon's proposal doesn't pass - -1 if Jon proposal is accepted, unless Jasper is removed from the list I think this is at least unfair. I started the discussion on minimal tomcat before Jon's vote. I was trying to get a consensus and opinions to shape the proposal. Jon jumped in with the vote. I don't think who proposes the vote first wins is the best solution, I don't think we are even talking about the same thing ( Jon wants a JSR154-only, I'm proposing a minimal tomcat ). I don't see why a vote on Jon's proposal would affect my proposal ( or any future vote ). As I said, I'd like to limit to 2 maximum the amount of Tomcat binary distributions (I think two is too much, actually, but still is acceptable). Then make a proposal that maximum 2 tomcat binary distribution should be allowed. But even in this case - I think I am allowed to propose that one of the distributions ( the small one ) includes jasper runtime and is not called jsr154 only. Even if Jon's vote is passing. If your -1 vote on minimal tomcat ( that includes jasper ) is based on concerns that we'll have too many distributions - I agree it's a valid reason, and I know you don't need a reason to vote -1. I have no problem with a vote on minimal tomcat to not include jasper compiler ( or even jasper runtime ) - if this gets a majority of votes than it can happen. The reverse is a bit more difficult - i.e. we can't include jasper in a JSR154 only ( as Jon proposed ) I agree this is unfair for your vote, and should be an independent issue. I'm reverting to my previous vote then (it was +1). Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
Votes: [X] +1 I like the idea, I might help [ ] -1 I don't like the idea, I won't help. Costin -- Jeanfrancois -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
on 2002/12/9 7:16 AM, Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Votes: [ ] +1 I like the idea, I might help [ ] -1 I don't like the idea, I won't help. +0 I don't have time to help, but I like the idea. -jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
on 2002/12/9 9:37 AM, Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see why a vote on Jon's proposal would affect my proposal ( or any future vote ). I agree. -jon -- StudioZ.tv /\ Bar/Nightclub/Entertainment 314 11th Street @ Folsom /\ San Francisco http://studioz.tv/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
on 2002/12/9 9:37 AM, Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then make a proposal that maximum 2 tomcat binary distribution should be allowed. I will -1 this vote. -jon -- StudioZ.tv /\ Bar/Nightclub/Entertainment 314 11th Street @ Folsom /\ San Francisco http://studioz.tv/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
On 9/12/02 15:16 Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since things may get confusing around here, I would like to have an official vote on my prior proposal. This is the list of included features: Libs: - JMX - JAAS - JNDI - digester ( and beanutils, collections it needs ). - modeler - ant ( used for startup and automation of some tasks ) - commons-logging When/if the JNDI-based abstraction of config files is ready we'll not need digester - but most likely it'll still be required by modeler, and also by jasper, so I don't think we can remove it. Tomcat: - subset of catalina ( non-deprecated interfaces and base impl that is required for tomcat to work ). - coyote - tomcat-util - http11/jk2 - all valves/etc that are required for tomcat to operate. - naming - jasper ( at least jasper runtime - but probably the whole thing ). Votes: [ ] +1 I like the idea, I might help [ ] -1 I don't like the idea, I won't help. I remember that when I proposed the same thing (roughly) and wanted to call it Tomcat-HA or something like it, you said: If possible, please also change the name - unless ASF gives you permission to use tomcat name in your product. I _love_ fairness and justice in this world... What-EVER! Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
Pier Fumagalli wrote: On 9/12/02 15:16 Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since things may get confusing around here, I would like to have an official vote on my prior proposal. This is the list of included features: Libs: - JMX - JAAS - JNDI - digester ( and beanutils, collections it needs ). - modeler - ant ( used for startup and automation of some tasks ) - commons-logging When/if the JNDI-based abstraction of config files is ready we'll not need digester - but most likely it'll still be required by modeler, and also by jasper, so I don't think we can remove it. Tomcat: - subset of catalina ( non-deprecated interfaces and base impl that is required for tomcat to work ). - coyote - tomcat-util - http11/jk2 - all valves/etc that are required for tomcat to operate. - naming - jasper ( at least jasper runtime - but probably the whole thing ). Votes: [ ] +1 I like the idea, I might help [ ] -1 I don't like the idea, I won't help. I remember that when I proposed the same thing (roughly) and wanted to call it Tomcat-HA or something like it, you said: If possible, please also change the name - unless ASF gives you permission to use tomcat name in your product. Can you point to the proposal you made on tomcat-dev and the vote results to your proposal ? Are you saying you made such a proposal and it was voted down ? Or it was approved and I didn't allowed you to call it whatever tomcat-dev decided ? My comment was in the context of a product named Tomcat-high-availability that wasn't voted by the tomcat-dev. It doesn't matter if it is a revolution or minimal or whatever it does - it shouldn't be named tomcat-anything without ASF or tomcat-dev permission. If this proposal doesn't pass I won't do it somewhere else and call it tomcat-minimal. Costin I _love_ fairness and justice in this world... What-EVER! Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
On 9/12/02 23:38 Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pier Fumagalli wrote: On 9/12/02 15:16 Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since things may get confusing around here, I would like to have an official vote on my prior proposal. This is the list of included features: Libs: - JMX - JAAS - JNDI - digester ( and beanutils, collections it needs ). - modeler - ant ( used for startup and automation of some tasks ) - commons-logging When/if the JNDI-based abstraction of config files is ready we'll not need digester - but most likely it'll still be required by modeler, and also by jasper, so I don't think we can remove it. Tomcat: - subset of catalina ( non-deprecated interfaces and base impl that is required for tomcat to work ). - coyote - tomcat-util - http11/jk2 - all valves/etc that are required for tomcat to operate. - naming - jasper ( at least jasper runtime - but probably the whole thing ). Votes: [ ] +1 I like the idea, I might help [ ] -1 I don't like the idea, I won't help. I remember that when I proposed the same thing (roughly) and wanted to call it Tomcat-HA or something like it, you said: If possible, please also change the name - unless ASF gives you permission to use tomcat name in your product. Can you point to the proposal you made on tomcat-dev and the vote results to your proposal ? Are you saying you made such a proposal and it was voted down ? Or it was approved and I didn't allowed you to call it whatever tomcat-dev decided ? My comment was in the context of a product named Tomcat-high-availability that wasn't voted by the tomcat-dev. It doesn't matter if it is a revolution or minimal or whatever it does - it shouldn't be named tomcat-anything without ASF or tomcat-dev permission. If this proposal doesn't pass I won't do it somewhere else and call it tomcat-minimal. You're better than me in scavanging through EyeBrowse... :-) Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
Pier Fumagalli wrote: I remember that when I proposed the same thing (roughly) and wanted to call it Tomcat-HA or something like it, you said: If possible, please also change the name - unless ASF gives you permission to use tomcat name in your product. Can you point to the proposal you made on tomcat-dev and the vote results to your proposal ? Are you saying you made such a proposal and it was voted down ? Or it was approved and I didn't allowed you to call it whatever tomcat-dev decided ? My comment was in the context of a product named Tomcat-high-availability that wasn't voted by the tomcat-dev. It doesn't matter if it is a revolution or minimal or whatever it does - it shouldn't be named tomcat-anything without ASF or tomcat-dev permission. If this proposal doesn't pass I won't do it somewhere else and call it tomcat-minimal. You're better than me in scavanging through EyeBrowse... :-) It's hard to find something that doesn't exist. I hate the practice of using old postings as arguments in most cases - it's normal for people to change their minds. But in this case you keep making false statements, and not only here. It should be quite easy to look for a [VOTE] or [PROPOSAL] that you made and was voted on tomcat-dev. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
on 2002/12/9 3:58 PM, Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's hard to find something that doesn't exist. ? I hate the practice of using old postings as arguments in most cases - it's normal for people to change their minds. There is a difference between changing your mind and making up the rules as you go along. But in this case you keep making false statements, and not only here. It should be quite easy to look for a [VOTE] or [PROPOSAL] that you made and was voted on tomcat-dev. Then find it. -jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
On 10/12/02 0:10 Jon Scott Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But in this case you keep making false statements, and not only here. It should be quite easy to look for a [VOTE] or [PROPOSAL] that you made and was voted on tomcat-dev. Then find it. I believe it never even went to [VOTE]... Got shut down before.. I usually have the bad habit of asking others before proposing votes... And, well, sometimes I don't really use that [VOTE] or [PROPOSAL] thing... I just hope that open minded people will read and give opinions on a free-form text subject base... Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
On 9/12/02 23:58 Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But in this case you keep making false statements, and not only here. It should be quite easy to look for a [VOTE] or [PROPOSAL] that you made and was voted on tomcat-dev. I swear that _LOVE_ my mates... My friend Tonia, who's apparently better than me in getting out old posts, actually _FOUND_ it! :-) Thank you :-) And for your own viewing pleasure, that's it... (OK, it didn't have the [PROPOSAL] tag, but the wording was in there, c'mon, be flexible! :-) Yes, ok, that's so true... I also vented the idea that _MAYBE_ (but maybe) someone could have reimplemented the Standard* classes, but WHAT THE HELL? All I said I wanted was (quote myself) more or less what Jon does for Scarab... I said that IN JUNE... JUNE for damn sake... And somewhere along this thread when it after degenerated in the usual flame war that always happens when something needs to be done you said If possible, please also change the name - unless ASF gives you permission to use tomcat name in your product. And now _I_ am the idiot who makes false statements... Damn... I _knew_ I had a reason to be upset... Tonia, thanks, I owe you two favours for this one (next time I'm in the US!) Pier Original Message Subject: Re: 5.0 proposal Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 21:49:51 +0100 From: Pier Fumagalli [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: That's why counts where not right on my side of the border... I don't recall vetoing the proposal... I just complained vehemently that I'd prefer to see 4.0 out of the door and stable rather than a 4.1 and a 5.0... 4.0 is out of door - the release happened long ago. So did 4.0.1... 4.0.4. 4.1 is getting close - and it should be more stable and better than 4.0.4. And 5.0 should be more stable and better than 4.1 and 3.3. And 6.0 will probably be better than 5.0. If you are interested in maintaining and improving 4.0.4 - just volunteer as release manager for the branch, you have my +1 on it. I can't be a RM for 4.0.4 because I would simply remove 70% of the code, and kiddies would start crying their butts off because they don't have the manager application, or JSP support :) But if anyone is interested I'd like to explore the opportunity of a Tomcat-HA (high-availability or hard-edition), based on 4.0 without the crap in there, and straightening out the request-response model... Simply, take the Catalina classes, and remove piles of useless stuff (more or less what Jon does for Scarab, but to a greater degree, maybe even reimplementing some of the Standard* classes). I can't veto as I don't really care how you want to spend your evenings and stuff... I don't think you can 'veto' a long term plan or release. AFAIK it's a majority vote. Veto in terms of -1ing it. Pier -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
