Hi people,
I just came back from holidays and red all this thread at once.
The main joke is in the initial posting where Jon goes from telling Costin
that "It really scares me that you are the only person..." in its beginning
to "We just don't have enough overall developer resources to support
+1
"Pour la plupart des hommes, se corriger consiste à changer de défauts."
-- Voltaire
Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GOMEZ Henri wrote:
I remember the hard discution about spinaker on xerces
mailing-list and IBM became more open after Sun position.
But in the Tomcat case we have Sun on one side and
individuals on the others.
Not really the same condition. Hello Sam ?-)
Jon Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 12/19/2000 10:48 AM, "Larry Isaacs" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Tomcat 3.3 can prove it is as stable as Tomcat 3.2.x and is
more spec compliant than 3.2.x,
Why does it have to be called Tomcat 3.3?
Why not Tomcat 3.2.x+1?
Because it's architecture
And we, as the newly formed Apache Software Foundation,
accepted that code
in donation as a point of start for the Jakarta Project. I was
there, in
that meeting room, that day when we outlined how the process would have
evolved, with Jon, Stefano and Brian. And I was there, on
stage at
Ok, too much mail on this thread, I'll try to summarize my answers:
- The only reason for me to stay on this project is that I want to finish
something that I started. In my view, tomcat 3.3 ( or what will be in the
main branch of cvs in about a month or 2 ) will be the "right" thing
based on
Look at the bugs in BugRat. The ones coming in for 4.0 are getting
linked, documented and closed faster than the ones coming in
for 3.x. The
bugs for 4.0 are fewer than the ones coming in for 3.x. Shit, I think
we've even got some 3.0's in there that haven't been dealt with!
I'm sorry to say
TC 4.0 appears to be more a Sun Project (core developpers are all Sun)
than an Apache Project.
It is run under Apache rules and I haven`t seen anywhere that the votes of
the 3.X committers count less than the 4.0 committers, so it`s still
democratic.
TC 3.3 is now the only tomcat opensource
GOMEZ Henri wrote:
Hey Sam (Rubys) what's the IBM position on this project ?
I've been trying to stay out of this particular discussion. Personally, I
agree with James Cook that Jon is doing an excellent job of alienating
people.
Once upon a time, Craig was the lone heretic. The fact that
GOMEZ Henri wrote:
I remember the hard discution about spinaker on xerces
mailing-list and IBM became more open after Sun position.
But in the Tomcat case we have Sun on one side and
individuals on the others.
Not really the same condition. Hello Sam ?-)
Tomcat 3.0 was clearly a Sun
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 8:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [MY_OPINION] Tomcat 3.x
snip
Of course, these problems are fixable if we had more committers ...
especially
ones interested in applying bug fixes to the current production release to
keep
it stable
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
Look at the bugs in BugRat. The ones coming in for 4.0 are getting
linked, documented and closed faster than the ones coming in
for 3.x. The
bugs for 4.0 are fewer than the ones coming in for 3.x. Shit, I think
we've even got some 3.0's in there
"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
Marc Saegesser wrote:
Craig,
I'm willing to volunteer my time and effort to help out with maintenance of
3.x. We are embedding Tomcat 3.2.x into our product so I have a vested
interest in making sure that the 3.2.x product is stable and robust.
As
+1
-Original Message-
From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 12:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [VOTE] Committer Status for Marc Saegesser (was: Re: 3.x
submitters [was RE: [MY_OPINION] Tomcat 3.x])
Marc Saegesser wrote:
Craig
+1
Costin
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Marc Saegesser wrote:
Craig,
I'm willing to volunteer my time and effort to help out with maintenance of
3.x. We are embedding Tomcat 3.2.x into our product so I have a vested
interest in making sure that the 3.2.x product
-Original Message-
From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 2:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [MY_OPINION] Tomcat 3.x
I'm not suggesting that we not release it.
Thanks, I misunderstood. If it were released as
3.2.x+1, I would
: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 04:01
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [MY_OPINION] Tomcat 3.x
Of course, these problems are fixable if we had more committers ...
especially
ones interested in applying bug fixes to the current production release to
keep
it stable and appropriate for production
Why not Tomcat 3.2.x+1?
This is the problem finally? a question of version numbers?
Whooa
this is entertainment, this is fun (from and old Cabaret Voltaire Song)
Saludos ,
Ignacio J. Ortega
Hi Jon,
First, I want to thank you for the advices and your
mail - even if I don't like what you say I do believe
that your mail have some good things for me.
It really scares me that you are the only person (as
far as I can tell) that is seriously interested in
? maintaining and developing
I definitely agree with Henry Costin...
Saludos ,
Ignacio J. Ortega
Not everybody is in a position to throw away their investment in the 3.x
series just yet. While its fun to try the latest and greatest, not
everybody can do that. Craig, is java.sun.com running on Tomcat 4.0?
Jon, is www.apache.org running Apache 2.0 yet? When do you think they
will be ready
* The good point with TC 4.0 are all the good things inside (JMX, JAXP
1.0/1.1)
The bad point on TC 4.0 are all these good things (JMX, JAXP 1.0/1.1).
You have seens the thread on '[PROPOSAL] building is easy'. We need too
many
things now to build TC 4.0.
You need JAXP, JSSE and
on 12/18/2000 10:01 AM, "Greg Bailey" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a use of Tomcat 3.1 on several production machines, may I say "thanks" also
to
Costin and everyone else who supports 3.1 (and 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.2.1, etc.) We
are
in no position to jump to 4.0 just because its trendy and has more
I don't agree. TC3.3 is a rewrite of TC3.2, with all
of the TC4 "fancy features" (and some more).
3.3 is not a "rewrite" of 3.2 - some code was moved
for better organization and modularity, and we
finished a number of optimizations that were started
during 3.2 development.
Yes, a lot of code
I wish people would pay more attention to what the
overall issues are
instead of focusing on entirely the wrong things.
+1 on this
The issue is the idea of a 3.3 and I'm not saying to
"jump" to 4.0.
I don't see how did you created a "3.3" issue -
tomcat3.x development continues as it
on 12/18/2000 11:27 AM, "Costin Manolache" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact, 3.3 doesn't even exist - when the development
on the main branch of tomcat 3 will reach a stable
state we can discuss about 3.3 , and you can argue
that it's better or worse than 3.2 and we should ( or
should not )
-Original Message-
From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
on 12/18/2000 10:01 AM, "Greg Bailey" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a use of Tomcat 3.1 on several production machines, may I
say "thanks" also
to
Costin and everyone else who supports 3.1 (and 3.1.1, 3.2,
3.2.1,
David Rees wrote:
Frankly, I am disappointed in the development process of Tomcat. I posted a
simple documentation patch (See bug report 528) two weeks ago for the FAQ
included with the Tomcat 3.x and posted a couple messages about it. I
haven't heard a thing about it and saw the release
Jon ha escrito:
Please look at all the information available to you about
what is happening
before commenting again.
To give people a chance to get a personal opinion let's go to the REAL
start of this thread, a interesting exercise ( at least for me )
on 12/18/2000 11:47 AM, "David Rees" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It really is part of the same issue. Because Greg is not willing to jump to
4.0, the idea of continuing development on the 3.x branch (work towards 3.3)
is welcome and reassuring. There will likely be some issues with porting
Hi Craig,
-Original Message-
From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Frankly, I am disappointed in the development process of
Tomcat. I posted a
simple documentation patch (See bug report 528) two weeks ago
for the FAQ
included with the Tomcat 3.x and posted a
Paul Frieden wrote:
Not everybody is in a position to throw away their investment in the 3.x
series just yet.
Absolutely true. That's why I went back and did 3.2, because I totally understand
this reasoning.
Some people can't even get off 3.1 yet, because Costin changed so much in 3.2
:-).
From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
There are no issues with porting to 4.0. I just took an app
developed on 3.x
and moved it to 4.0 without any problems.
Maybe for your app it ported over, but for others (specifically those
working with XML and parsers other than the one bundled
on 12/18/2000 12:40 PM, "David Rees" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although I might point out that there seems to be at least one full time
paid employee on the project. :-)
-Dave
Costin is not paid to work on this project.
-jon
on 12/18/2000 12:20 AM, "Costin Manolache" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see any need to go beyond 3.3 - and I said
many times I'll stop doing any major changes in the
core after 3.3 is done. I'll just fix bugs and develop
modules - most of them in my private, non-apache space
( I'm
- Original Message -
From: "Jon Stevens" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
callous rant snipped
I think Jon is going for the record to see how many developers and people of
good conscience he can alienate.
Costin, I appreciate all of the hard work you have done on the Tomcat project.
You were pivotal
on 12/18/2000 1:36 PM, "James Cook" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Jon is going for the record to see how many developers and people of
good conscience he can alienate.
I thank you for your opinion. I'm sorry if people feel alienated as that
isn't my intention.
Costin, I appreciate all of
Hi Jon,
From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Of course not. That is why I'm suggesting to move away from it for the
future and opening the discussion of that now. Would you rather that we
continue to follow down this path of split trees forever? Would you rather
that all of our
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Henri Gomez wrote:
The users will decide. Be fair, let them evaluate TC 3.3.
Speaking as a user, this doesn't make sense. It's fine to compare
two different products, but it doesn't make any sense to compare two
different versions of the same product that are
David Rees wrote:
Hi Craig,
-Original Message-
From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Frankly, I am disappointed in the development process of
Tomcat. I posted a
simple documentation patch (See bug report 528) two weeks ago
for the FAQ
included with
Henri Gomez wrote:
[snip]
Tomcat 3.x or 4.x? That is the confusion that needs to be cleared up.
The confusion will exist also for Apache 1.3 / 2.0. And this one will be much
more important.
It's actually pretty clear in the web server case. The active development is
happening on 2.0,
Hello,
(another user here)
If the difference were spoken as tc 3.x follows servlet 2.2/jsp 1.1 where
tc 4.x follows servlet2.3/jsp 1.2, then it's a clear difference that I
can appreciate, and even base decisions on.
I decided to follow 3.2, as I felt that it was getting the most exercise
kenneth topp wrote:
Hello,
(another user here)
If the difference were spoken as tc 3.x follows servlet 2.2/jsp 1.1 where
tc 4.x follows servlet2.3/jsp 1.2, then it's a clear difference that I
can appreciate, and even base decisions on.
For any previous version change in the servlet api
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Jon Stevens wrote:
p.s. One thing that you are all not remembering or even realize is that
Catalina was originally going to be JServ 2.0. If Sun had never given us the
source code to Tomcat, then you would have been using Catalina anyway.
I hope EVERYONE takes what Jon
44 matches
Mail list logo
