> On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote: > > > Well, the Java code looks very similar to me. So the native code could > > easily be ported to j-t-s. > > It's just that this code is 100% Tomcat-dependency free. So since it's some > > generic capability other projects could want, I proposed to move it to the > > commons, instead of leaving it as a hidden Tomcat subproject. > > +1 :-) > > If we are doing that, should we also move j-t-c/utils to commons ? > My proposal would be to use a different package name, so we can > start adding/improving the utils without nasty class compatibility > problems for 3.3.
Well, j-t-c/utils is more our core buisness. Since 4.0 or the connectors don't duplicate the code like 3.3 does, I'd say I don't like the idea too much. Or we can put them there, still keep the current ones, and start using the ones from the commons during the next release cycle. Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
