Jan Luehe wrote:
I noticed that if I send a request specifying HTTP/1.0 as the protocol
version, and the response exceeds the output buffer, TC returns an
HTTP/1.1 response with neither a Content-Length nor a
Transfer-Encoding: chunked header.
I would have expected it to include a Content-Length
Marc Slemko wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Jan Luehe wrote:
I would have expected it to include a Content-Length header. Would you
agree?
It, umh, can't do that for dynamic content without buffering the
whole response since it doesn't know how long it is.
Not even that does work, actually. The
Speaking of jasper, I'm very sorry to interrupt again, and I know it's bad
etiquette to repeat myself, but I have two patches to outstanding bugs in
Jasper and I'm just asking for a little help navigating your CVS
repository so I can make it easy for you to get them in.
Details here:
David Wood wrote:
Speaking of jasper, I'm very sorry to interrupt again, and I know it's bad
etiquette to repeat myself, but I have two patches to outstanding bugs in
Jasper and I'm just asking for a little help navigating your CVS
repository so I can make it easy for you to get them in.
Let's be nice to each other, Remy. I want to help.
My question was very specific. Why, when I check out TOMCAT_4_1_24, does
it not match what's in your jakarta-tomcat-4.1.24-LE-jdk14.zip source
bundle?
The bugzilla #'s aren't closed, but I want to be sure these fixes are
already in, and
Marc,
It can also be useful if you have a client that doesn't support chunked
encoding - which is probably true for a _lot_ of scripting tools.
If there is any other way to have the response not use chunked encoding,
then I agree this is not needed.
Do we still support HTTP/1.0 or some request
It can also be useful if you have a client that doesn't support chunked
encoding - which is probably true for a _lot_ of scripting tools.
If there is any other way to have the response not use chunked encoding,
then I agree this is not needed.
Do we still support HTTP/1.0 or some request header to
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Jan Luehe wrote:
It can also be useful if you have a client that doesn't support chunked
encoding - which is probably true for a _lot_ of scripting tools.
If there is any other way to have the response not use chunked encoding,
then I agree this is not needed.
Do we
Bill Barker wrote:
How about making the output buffer size limit configurable?
(A value of -1 could mean indefinite growth, if people know what they
are doing.)
I also dislike the proposal, but since it's configurable, and off by default
I can limit myself to -0. The biggest problem I see is that
- Original Message -
From: Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable
Bill Barker wrote:
How about making the output buffer size limit
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Bill Barker wrote:
How about making the output buffer size limit configurable?
(A value of -1 could mean indefinite growth, if people know what they
are doing.)
I also dislike the proposal, but since it's configurable, and off by
default
I can limit myself to -0. The
- Original Message -
From: Costin Manolache [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Bill Barker wrote:
How about making the output buffer size limit
Remy,
Jan Luehe wrote:
Currently, the limit up to which the size of an
org.apache.coyote.tomcat5.OutputBuffer may grow is identical to the
original buffer size:
public OutputBuffer(int size) {
bb = new ByteChunk(size);
bb.setLimit(size);
...
cb = new
- Original Message -
From: Jan Luehe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Make output buffer size limit configurable
Remy,
Jan Luehe wrote:
Currently, the limit up to which the size
Jan Luehe wrote:
Currently, the limit up to which the size of an
org.apache.coyote.tomcat5.OutputBuffer may grow is identical to the
original buffer size:
public OutputBuffer(int size) {
bb = new ByteChunk(size);
bb.setLimit(size);
...
cb = new CharChunk(size);
What about using external entities?
ie:
?xml version=1.0 encoding=ISO-8859-1?
!DOCTYPE web-app
PUBLIC -//Sun Microsystems, Inc.//DTD Web Application 2.3//EN
http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-app_2_3.dtd;
[
!ENTITY jspservlet system jspservlet.xml
]
then, between the servlet and servlet
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Remy Maucherat wrote:
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:05:26 +0100
From: Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Extra web.xml to declare compiled JSPs
Hi,
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Many app servers have private deployment descriptors for extra
information, similar to what Remy is proposing -- indeed, one could claim
that Tomcat does this already with how we use $CATALINA_HOME/conf/web.xml
to set default behavior (well, at least until Costin's
-Original Message-
From: Chris Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 6:43 AM
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: Re: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Extra web.xml to declare compiled JSPs
Hi Remy,
It might be worth COPYING the original web.xml at deployment
time, to make
John Trollinger wrote:
Remy,
I think it would be nice to have a pre-compilier like JspC used to be.
The precompile part of the jsp spec is just not that handy when trying
to do builds and having ant tasks pass or fail based on the jsp and
compiling jsp pages into servelts is not an option for
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Hi,
It is not very convinient or easy to insert the declarations for
compiled JSPs into the webapp's web.xml file. It also has the
disadvantage of adding a lot of mess in the web.xml, which the user may
not like.
For that reason, I propose that Tomcat parses a new
Costin Manolache wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Hi,
It is not very convinient or easy to insert the declarations for
compiled JSPs into the webapp's web.xml file. It also has the
disadvantage of adding a lot of mess in the web.xml, which the user may
not like.
For that reason, I propose that
- Original Message -
From: Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 3:05 AM
Subject: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Extra web.xml to declare compiled JSPs
Hi,
It is not very convinient or easy to insert the declarations for
Could an alternate hack be to modify JspServlet to allow an additional
init parameter which would be the file which contains the mapping of the
precompiled jsp's? The config file could just be the web.xml snippet
generated by the precompilation process. This way web.xml isn't touched
and if
The main point is to _not_ hack anything, but just use the standard.
If you precompile your app - and include jasper-runtime.jar in WEB-INF/lib -
the result should work in _any_ container - the precompiled jsps are _just_
regular servlets that happen to use a lib and extend from a base class.
Costin Manolache wrote:
The main point is to _not_ hack anything, but just use the standard.
If you precompile your app - and include jasper-runtime.jar in WEB-INF/lib -
the result should work in _any_ container - the precompiled jsps are _just_
regular servlets that happen to use a lib and
Remy Maucherat wrote:
I agree that using ant replace is a hack - the right solution would be to
read the XML with DOM, insert the elements in the right place, and save
back ( DOM - so we don't loose comments ). Or even read it as a file, and
use regexp. No problem if we save the original
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
The main point is to _not_ hack anything, but just use the standard.
If you precompile your app - and include jasper-runtime.jar in
WEB-INF/lib - the result should work in _any_ container - the precompiled
jsps are _just_ regular servlets that
Costin Manolache wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
I don't know.
jasper-compiler is needed only to support development use cases, it
obviously shouldn't be used on production servers.
We are mixing 2 very different use cases here:
- development - you don't need to precompile and jasper-compiler is
On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 15:37, Remy Maucherat wrote:
[...]
Yes, but welcome files for non physical resources cannot be implemented
(since you have no way of asking a servlet if it can or cannot process a
resource).
I'll implement something which works and which is very close to what the
Bob Herrmann wrote:
On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 15:37, Remy Maucherat wrote:
[...]
Yes, but welcome files for non physical resources cannot be implemented
(since you have no way of asking a servlet if it can or cannot process a
resource).
I'll implement something which works and which is very
On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 18:38, Patrick Luby wrote:
Remy and Costin,
I found the following draft wording that is being considered for the
Servlet 2.4 spec. The exact wording may change, but the context should
stay the same. Are there any unimplementable pieces in this proposed
wording:
The
Bob Herrmann wrote:
On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 18:38, Patrick Luby wrote:
Remy and Costin,
I found the following draft wording that is being considered for the
Servlet 2.4 spec. The exact wording may change, but the context should
stay the same. Are there any unimplementable pieces in this
Remy,
Remy Maucherat wrote:
It now looks doable with the standalone Tomcat. It may still be
unimplementable through Apache, though.
My wish would be that only physical resources can be used as welcome
files, so that the spec is implementable through a native webserver.
(Quite frankly,
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote:
The wording in the 4th paragraph in section 9.10 of the Servlet 2.4 spec
may change to:
The web server must append each welcome file in the order
specified in the deployment descriptor to the partial request and
check whether a [static]
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Patrick Luby wrote:
I really don't like this spec change either. After carefully reading the
revised wording, it still seems that spec is saying if I can't find any
of the listed static welcome files, start looking for anything that can
serve up a response.
OK,
Jean-François,
I would vote +1 as long as these two HOST attributes are optional
attributes. In other words, if they are missing from server.xml, both
default to false. I think that is what you are proposing but I just
wanted to make sure.
Patrick
Jean-francois Arcand wrote:
Hi,
based on
Bob Herrmann wrote:
On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 13:23, Remy Maucherat wrote:
Hi,
I have been hinting at rewriting the main Catalina mapper for Tomcat 5.
The proposal is designed to improve performance, avoid generating
uneeded garbage String objects, and optimize the welcome files processing.
Jean-francois Arcand wrote:
Hi,
based on the mailling list feedback, I would like to propose the
following solution for the XML Parser DTD/Schema validation/namespace
aware problems:
- Add the following attributes in server.xml under the HOST element:
xmlValidation=false
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote:
Yes, but welcome files for non physical resources cannot be implemented
(since you have no way of asking a servlet if it can or cannot process a
resource).
I'll implement something which works and which is very close to what the
spec requires.
Big +1 !
We can have a small ant-based script that can validate a webapp -
find all the XMLs and TLDs and run schema and DTD validation on it.
Another nice thing we could do - if someone has the time - is
adding 'Serializable' to Context and all other config objects and
saving a snapshot. Then
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The current specification is not implementable for Apache ( or any other
web server ) - and it breaks every pattern that was used in the web.
I don't know if we have any representative in the expert group or
what's the procedure that apache follows in voting for JCP
Remy and Costin,
I found the following draft wording that is being considered for the
Servlet 2.4 spec. The exact wording may change, but the context should
stay the same. Are there any unimplementable pieces in this proposed
wording:
The wording in the 4th paragraph in section 9.10 of the
- Original Message -
From: Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 10:23 AM
Subject: [5.0] [PROPOSAL] Refactored mapper
Hi,
I have been hinting at rewriting the main Catalina mapper for Tomcat 5.
The proposal is
I can't commit to developing this (I'd love to, I have some ideas, but I
don't have the time...), but hopefully it might interest someone and they
can develop it...
When deploying webapps as WAR files, especially generic webapps, it's not
always very practical to request that an administrator
Thanks for the encouraged news. We've been using Tomcat in
our product
for a while now. Now, I need to set it up with support for
minimum 100K
simultaneous connection to our server side.
100K simultaneous connection !
I doubt any hardware/software/os (even on high system)
could
- Original Message -
From: Pier Fumagalli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: 5.0 proposal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
That's why counts where
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see that much to remove. I assume JNDI is the ever popular
target, but I didn't notice it causing major problems (either
performance or reliability), so I'd say it's not worth it.
Actually, I have a complaint... 4.1.3
:-)
-Original Message-
From: Arshad Mahmood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 25 June 2002 09:12
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: Re: 5.0 proposal
- Original Message -
From: Pier Fumagalli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002
Steven Wood wrote:
Hi all,
I was interested to read the differing opinions on 5.0 or not, and I was
interested to hear Pier say that he did not think tomcat was an option in a
production system. We have been using tomcat 3.2.3 (an out of date version
I know) and while it performs it very
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 10:41 AM
To: 'Tomcat Developers List'
Subject: RE: 5.0 proposal
Hi all,
I was interested to read the differing opinions on 5.0 or not,
and I was
interested to hear Pier say that he did not think tomcat was
an option in a
production system. We
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: Re: 5.0 proposal
Steven Wood wrote:
Hi all,
I was interested to read the differing opinions on 5.0 or not, and I was
interested to hear Pier say that he did not think tomcat was an option in
a
production system. We have been using tomcat 3.2.3 (an out of date
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see that much to remove. I assume JNDI is the ever popular
target, but I didn't notice it causing major problems (either
performance or reliability), so I'd say it's not worth it.
Actually, I
Arshad Mahmood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+100!
As somebody who also intends to use Tomcat in production (around 10
different sites with a reasonable load, maybe 1/4 of vnunet) this would be
very helpful to me.
You mentioned a couple of specific things you would like to do. Would it be
jean-frederic clere [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do see the following on my Linux:
+++
tcp0 0 :::127.0.0:http-alt :::127.0.0.1:32893 TIME_WAIT
tcp0 0 :::127.0.0.1:32892 :::127.0.0.1:8005 TIME_WAIT
tcp0 0 :::127.0.0.1:32894
80E6
-Original Message-
From: Pier Fumagalli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 4:41 PM
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: Re: random BOUND socket (was Re: 5.0 proposal).
jean-frederic clere [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do see the following on my Linux:
+++
tcp
Pier could you detail what should be a Tomcat HA, and how
it could fit in TC 5.0 proposal ?
As far as I can remember it was voted -1...
What about TC 5.0 with HA capability ?
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
Pier could you detail what should be a Tomcat HA, and how
it could fit in TC 5.0 proposal ?
As far as I can remember it was voted -1...
What about TC 5.0 with HA capability ?
TC5.0 will have a 'higher availability' then 4.1 which is better
than
GOMEZ Henri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pier could you detail what should be a Tomcat HA, and how
it could fit in TC 5.0 proposal ?
As far as I can remember it was voted -1...
What about TC 5.0 with HA capability ?
Well... It's a matter of code... Given that there is not one line of code
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
http://nagoya.apache.org/svn/jakarta-tomcat-ha/
If you guys don't want to see it associated with the Apache name, just let
me know and I will move it off on my (Betaversion or VNU) servers.
If possible, please also change the name - unless ASF
and build the parts of tomcat that you need with out all the overhead.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 1:07 PM
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, John Trollinger wrote:
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 13:19:40 -0400
From: John Trollinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Tomcat Developers List' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)
Although Pier
- Original Message -
From: Pier Fumagalli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tomcat Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: 5.0 proposal
Arshad Mahmood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+100!
As somebody who also intends to use Tomcat in production (around
I'm interested in this Tomcat HA also. If you have a plan, please send
it out. I'm willing to help.
GOMEZ Henri wrote:
As somebody who also intends to use Tomcat in production (around 10
different sites with a reasonable load, maybe 1/4 of vnunet)
this would be
very helpful to
out ?
Costin
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 1:07 PM
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
Pier could you detail what
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
Pier could you detail what should be a Tomcat HA, and how
it could fit in TC 5.0 proposal ?
As far as I can remember it was voted -1...
What about TC 5.0 with HA capability ?
TC5.0 will have a 'higher availability' then
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
Pier could you detail what should be a Tomcat HA, and how
it could fit in TC 5.0 proposal ?
As far as I can remember it was voted -1...
What about TC 5.0 with HA capability ?
TC5.0 will have a 'higher
Mathias,
Thanks for the encouraged news. We've been using Tomcat in our product
for a while now. Now, I need to set it up with support for minimum 100K
simultaneous connection to our server side. If you could share some of
your knowledge how you did it with your site, it would be
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Huy Tran wrote:
Mathias,
Thanks for the encouraged news. We've been using Tomcat in our product
for a while now. Now, I need to set it up with support for minimum 100K
simultaneous connection to our server side. If you could share some of
your knowledge how you
Developers List
Subject: Re: HA tomcat ( was: RE: 5.0 proposal)
[snip]
Well, I know quite a few people who managed to get tomcat in
production on a variety of sites ( including very large loads).
I run Tomcat on 20 or so production web sites, with volumes in the
2/3 million hits per day
Dunlop, Aaron wrote:
Mathias,
It would be great to see some details on your experiences with
load-balancing Tomcat, and any tricks you've come up with would be much
appreciated by the community (well, at least my part of it ;)
We also run Tomcat 4.0 in production, behind a hardware load
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems we have 3 -1 votes so far. While majority is required, I think
we all agree that getting everyone ( reasonable ) involved and comfortable
with the proposal is very important ( and one of the goals of 5.0 ).
+1.
Christopher: I think we should add your
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote:
+1 to start a new commons subproject.
If everyone else wants to see the bench webapp here, then I'll remove my
-1. However, it sounds generic, and not at all dependent on Tomcat, so
that's why I think it would be a lot better in the commons.
Remy Maucherat wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems we have 3 -1 votes so far. While majority is required, I think
we all agree that getting everyone ( reasonable ) involved and
comfortable
with the proposal is very important ( and one of the goals of 5.0 ).
+1.
Christopher:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems we have 3 -1 votes so far.
For completeness's sake, who are the 3 -1s? Not all the members of this list
have the entire day to read all that happens around here...
Pier
--
[Perl] combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems we have 3 -1 votes so far.
For completeness's sake, who are the 3 -1s? Not all the members of this list
have the entire day to read all that happens around here...
Glenn, Christopher and you.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote:
However, it sounds generic, and not at all dependent on Tomcat, so
that's why I think it would be a lot better in the commons.
Maybe watchdog would be a better place for it.
Watchdog is an official TCK, so it's
Watchdog is an official TCK
Actually, Watchdog is not an official TCK (just wanted to make this
clear). It's nothing more than a test suite that uses the same test
source.
However, I do agree that performance analysis in not the goal of
Watchdog.
-rl
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems we have 3 -1 votes so far.
For completeness's sake, who are the 3 -1s? Not all the members of this list
have the entire day to read all that
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
[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
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...
+1000
Please do it, you could call it Road-Runner :)
BTW: Did not want to
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
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 :)
I don't think you can remove JSP support - tomcat would no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
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 :)
I don't think
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
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
BTW: Did not want to take part on the nice flamaewar started for the
occasion of the 5.0 proposal, was so nice, not very bloody for my taste,
but nice :))
Yeah, it's just not the same without Jon and Paulo. ;-)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see that much to remove. I assume JNDI is the ever popular
target, but I didn't notice it causing major problems (either
performance or reliability), so I'd say it's not worth it.
Actually, I have a complaint... 4.1.3 tries to write into my
Developers List
Subject: Re: 5.0 proposal
Remy Maucherat wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems we have 3 -1 votes so far. While majority is required, I
think we all agree that getting everyone ( reasonable )
involved and
comfortable with the proposal is very important ( and one
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Glenn Nielsen wrote:
+1 to add a Tomcat specific performance testing/benchmark repository.
Perhaps it would be best if it were in its own repository,
jakarta-tomcat-benchmark ? I will help as I have time.
I think we have 3 +1s and one -1 - maybe Remy can change his
89 matches
Mail list logo
