> As a consequence, I feel that this decision means that Tomcat 3.x can
> *not* implement Servlet 2.3/JSP 1.2, since it would be very confusing
> for both developers and users with two code bases supporting the same
> API levels within the same project.
While I disagree with that, I already did what you asked for and removed
the 23 facade.
Tomcat 3.x has been specifically designed to support multiple Servlet
facades, and that's an important factor and can play an important role in
deployment stories - people can easily migrate from a version to another
and gradually convert their applications.
It is an important feature - that no other container has.
Because we don't have a rule to name containers that support multiple
servlet APIs - it doesn't mean we are not allowed to support that.
Anyway - a servlet 2.3 implementatio for 3.3 is important to insure it's
future, and I already said I'm going to work on it. I also said this is
going to happen on a different repository, and will be released
independently, so I think that resolves the naming problem.
> The way I feel right now is that the best way to answer this question
> is by a vote on this list, where all +1 votes for TC 3.3 also means a
> commitment to help fix bugs in TC 3.3. That's pretty much how we got
+1
> from TC 3.1 to TC 3.2. Sam announced his intention to step up as the
> release manager for TC 3.2 and and start cutting milestone releases
> in a mail titled "Towards a 3.2 release" (14 June, 2000). For various
Where he also mentions that "development in the main branch goes on".
> > Quick poll - how many of you ( who voted or not at that time ) read the
> > proposal as "3.x development should stop, Catalina has proven to be
> > better" ?
>
> Not as "3.x development should stop", but as "development of the
> new APIs will be done based on Catalina while TC 3.x continues to
> be the RI for 2.2/1.1, with bugfixes and enhancements as needed".
Well, at that time the facade23 was already started - but I'm not going
to argue about that, and I stoped any work on it in order to focus on 3.3.
I just want to point that the decision is at least ambigouous in this
issue. ( yet again - it's just a note, not the start of an argument )
> released, so I helped out with a few patches there. For the future, I
> will be more likely to contribute to TC 4.x though, since I will start
> to play around with the new spec versions.
I was hoping to get you involved in the facade23 :-)
( I have few cool ideas for filters, it'll be a lot of fun )
> > Does it looks like a "project decision" ?
>
> Yes, to me it does; it was voted on and got the required +1 votes and
> no -1 votes. That's a "project decision" according to our rules for
> decision making in this project.
My mistake - it is of course a "project decision", the question should
have been - does it looks like the "decision" Jon is invoking to justify
stopping 3.3 ? Does it look like what Jon is claiming that I'm alone and
all other developers have decided for 4.0 ?
Costin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
