(B
(B
(B
(B2004/11/08 $B$+$iIT:_$K$7$F$*$j$^$9!#(B2004/11/10 $B$K5"<R$$$?$7$^$9!#(B
(B
$B$4LBOG$r$*$+$1$7$^$9$,5"<R$7$^$7$F$+$i!"JVEz$$$?$7$^$9!#(B
$B59$7$/$*4j$?$7$^$9!#(B
(B
(B
(B
(B**
Please unscribe me. Thanks. Kaniz
**
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
]]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 4:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Removal of mod_jk for Apache 2.0 from
jakarta-tomcat
f or T omcat 3.3
+1
Let me comment at little.
I'm currently working in porting changes in
JT to JTC and from JTC to JT.
For example, recent change
]]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 4:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Removal of mod_jk for Apache 2.0 from
jakarta-tomcat
f or T omcat 3.3
+1
Let me comment at little.
I'm currently working in porting changes in
JT to JTC and from JTC to JT.
For example
I just finished merging all the chunked encoding
support for ajp13 into j-t-c and was about to checkin.
I'll hold off until we decide about this:
| Henri - could we undo the ajp13.c changes, for example by copying the
| current ajp13 from j-t and re-doing the autoconf changes ? Having
Keith
On Monday 10 September 2001 14:05, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
GOMEZ Henri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ryan to became more than just a contributer :
This is the third time we agree on something in less
On Monday 10 September 2001 14:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
This is the third time we agree on something in less than 24 hours.
This implies that either I'm getting old, or just plain silly...
Now, if you could agree on merging mod_webapp
On Monday 10 September 2001 15:22, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MMAP is the other scary stuff in APR, the new code (without Ralph's
libmm) it no more than one month old... I need it for load balancing,
but I want to double check with the guys in CA next week
En réponse à [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
GOMEZ Henri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ryan to became more than just a contributer :
This is the third time we agree on something in less than 24 hours.
This
implies that either I'm getting old, or just
I'm actually right now working on the thread locks for Windows, and
then
I
am going to start agitating for an APR release. We should have APR
1.0
out
the door soon-ish. I am hoping to have it released sometime in the
next
month
or two. :-)
That's the last objection to use APR
Gomez Henri wrote:
[snip]
PS: Something goes crasy these days, on tomcat list, what do you think
about this Pier (known as my worst enemy :)
Something is indeed a little bizarre on the list today, mon ami. Maybe
because Craig isn't here to keep us in line =)
a) There are now four key
On Monday 10 September 2001 16:15, Christopher Cain wrote:
Gomez Henri wrote:
[snip]
PS: Something goes crasy these days, on tomcat list, what do you think
about this Pier (known as my worst enemy :)
Something is indeed a little bizarre on the list today, mon ami. Maybe
because Craig
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I'm new to the list, but I like to veto things too. Somebody point me
at something I can veto... :-)
You can always veto your committer status... :) :) :)
Pier
Gomez Henri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm ok for that, may be by merging ajp14 and warp (ajp20).
Ok... I can agree with that...
We could have this protocol implementation in mod_jk
and mod_webapp :)
Sure do...
I'm serious here...
Me too...
- with mod_jk, you'll gain
Christopher Cain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something is indeed a little bizarre on the list today, mon ami. Maybe
because Craig isn't here to keep us in line =)
No, I believe we have to thank Jon for that... I believe that raising
another flame war at this point made us all realize that
Agreed!
Let Costin and the others make their job and then let code talk.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 12:55
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: F
Whoever wants
-Original Message-
From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 23:26
Tomcat 3.2 has *only* happened because Tomcat 4.0 wasn't ready.
And I wonder when is it going to be.
That is why I want the 3.3 alternative.
Remember the history of Tomcat
I don't mean to sound as though I am a prude, but we do a lot of our
consulting at customer sites, much of it face-to-face with the customer's
staff and management. I can control what messages I read and when but I
cannot control when people are in my office and when the message alert with
the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't mean to sound as though I am a prude, but we do a lot of our
consulting at customer sites, much of it face-to-face with the customer's
staff and management. I can control what messages I read and when but I
cannot control when people are in my office and
The future of Tomcat 3.3 seems to be outside Apache now.
It's really sad.
Sorry, but that's not what I said Henry. Last month I even came up with
a proposal that got accepted (but never turned to reality) on how to
handle this situation... But it seems to me, that everyone here is
on 12/21/2000 2:18 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tomcat3.2 is a big step forward versus Tomcat3.1 - but it still have many
issues - take a look at the ContextManager in 3.3, compare it with 3.2 -
there are still many undefined behaviors, even code from 3.0.
Tomcat 3.2 has
, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.geniesystems.com
Jon Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
22/12/2000 11:26
Please respond to tomcat-dev
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: F
Well, I am not that good at getting all this flames ( and to be honest I'm
not used to get the "thanks" that I got lately - mostly in private mail -
it looks like a very different world, and an wonderful Christmas gift for
me )
In any case, I'll try to stay away from further arguments - I know
23 matches
Mail list logo
