On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Tom Drake wrote:
> FYI:
>
> Based on previous discussions on this list, I've added setJvmRoute/JvmRoute
> to Engine
> (and StandardEngine) as part of the work I've been doing for distributed
> sessions.
Can you send the patch for this one ?
There are just 2 changes that are
Seguin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Tomcat Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:59 AM
Subject: RE: Todo list for 4.0.2 b2
| > - Did jk from j-t-c for TC 4.0.2B2 will support load balancing ?
| > I didn't
> - Did jk from j-t-c for TC 4.0.2B2 will support load balancing ?
> I didn't see the use of getJvmRoute/setJvmRoute in latest
> TC 4.0 CVS.
>
nope :(
it's never been clear to me exactly what has to be done to support load
balancing, so i've never attempted to add the functionality. and i
First Happy New Year to all of you.
Just back from hollidays and start to dig into my ton
of email, and so delayed some contributions like 4.0.2b1
RPM (will do the b2) and active participation on J-T-C
(but there is today many great people working on it).
Question :
- Did jk from j-t-c for T
Craig,
>Paul, this needs to be turned around as well. *Please* consider that what
>you are asking for has a very substantial backwards compatibility cost --
>making this change would mean it's impossible to have compiled Java code
>that works with both 4.0.1 and 4.0.2, because the class inherita
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Paul Hammant wrote:
> Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 12:55:14 +
> From: Paul Hammant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Tomcat Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Todo list for 4.0.
> Remy,
>
> >And why don't you want to write your own wrapper (I doubt Embedded is
> >adapted to your use case anyway), and put it in the Avalon tree ? That's
why
> >I do with the various Catalina wrappers Slide has, and it doesn't cause
any
> >problems.
> >
> >Also, not having separated interface
Remy,
>And why don't you want to write your own wrapper (I doubt Embedded is
>adapted to your use case anyway), and put it in the Avalon tree ? That's why
>I do with the various Catalina wrappers Slide has, and it doesn't cause any
>problems.
>
>Also, not having separated interfaces and implement
> Remy,
>
> >If our helper object for embedding doesn't fit your needs, I suggest you
> >write your own instead. It doesn't take long, and it will do what you
want
> >(including having an interface, so it fits into your virtual OS dream).
> >
> I am talking about Avalon (another Jakarta project).
Remy,
>If our helper object for embedding doesn't fit your needs, I suggest you
>write your own instead. It doesn't take long, and it will do what you want
>(including having an interface, so it fits into your virtual OS dream).
>
I am talking about Avalon (another Jakarta project). It is not a
> Remy,
>
> >Only the core objects have interfaces. Embedded is a helper object, so
it's
> >not an interface. Just like Catalina is not an interface.
> >By the way, I don't see how having an interface makes it easier to work
with
> >Catalina. The only useful thing with interfaces is if you want to
Remy,
>Only the core objects have interfaces. Embedded is a helper object, so it's
>not an interface. Just like Catalina is not an interface.
>By the way, I don't see how having an interface makes it easier to work with
>Catalina. The only useful thing with interfaces is if you want to extend or
> Remy,
>
> >>* Embbeded interface (my email Jan 7th, 18:51)
> >>
> >
> >-1, because it's an API change for cosmetic reasons only.
> >
> In the head branch again then?
> It of course changes nothing if the
> class is not renamed. It is not for cosmetic reasons, it will help
> third party applicat
Remy,
>>* Embbeded interface (my email Jan 7th, 18:51)
>>
>
>-1, because it's an API change for cosmetic reasons only.
>
In the head branch again then? It of course changes nothing if the
class is not renamed. It is not for cosmetic reasons, it will help
third party applications instantiate C
> Remy, Kevin, Jena-Frederic, Bill, Craig et al,
>
> Could we also do...
>
> * the jar split (my email Jan 7th, 14:28)
No, sorry, some people depend on the binary distribution packaging. Will do
it in the HEAD branch.
> * Embbeded interface (my email Jan 7th, 18:51)
-1, because it's an API chan
Remy, Kevin, Jena-Frederic, Bill, Craig et al,
Could we also do...
* the jar split (my email Jan 7th, 14:28)
* Embbeded interface (my email Jan 7th, 18:51)
Regards,
- Paul H
>Hi,
>
>Here goes the list:
>- Tag the JK + util directories in j-t-c with some tag (Costin proposed
>jk_14)
>- Build t
Remy Maucherat wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Here goes the list:
> - Tag the JK + util directories in j-t-c with some tag (Costin proposed
> jk_14)
> - Build the corresponding JK binaries
> - Write some documentation about the new auto-configuration mechanism (but
> it can wait until 4.0.2 Final)
> - Updat
- Original Message -
From: "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 3:55 PM
Subject: Todo list for 4.0.2 b2
> Hi,
>
> Here goes the list:
> - Tag the JK + util directories in j-t-c with some tag (Cost
> Here goes the list:
> - Tag the JK + util directories in j-t-c with some tag
> (Costin proposed
> jk_14)
> - Build the corresponding JK binaries
i've successfully built and used the following, and can provide binaries if
necessary (all jk1, btw):
- iis connector
- netscape connector on solar
Hi,
Here goes the list:
- Tag the JK + util directories in j-t-c with some tag (Costin proposed
jk_14)
- Build the corresponding JK binaries
- Write some documentation about the new auto-configuration mechanism (but
it can wait until 4.0.2 Final)
- Update the AJP page in the docs with other chang
20 matches
Mail list logo
