IMO: one of the main goals of jk2 was modularity, i.e. jk2 is composed of components, each component can use and do whatever it likes without affecting the other components.
I totally agree that jk2.1 should use APR ( I'll send my vote on each point ) - but I don't think the old code should be removed yet - there's no reason. The only problem is that we'll have to maintain 2 versions - the APR one and the old/original component. But that's a good thing IMO - the old one is already stable and shouldn't be changed except for bug fixes ( in the same way important bug fixes are backported from tomcat5 to 4.1 or from 4.1 to 4.0 ). I am +1 on creating a separate target/makefiles that will exclude the 'old'/non-apr components, or changing the code so that the APR components will be used by default in 2.1. I see no reason to remove components that work well and are tested. And a branch shouldn't be needed - it should be perfectly possible to do whatever we want in the new components. The only thing that needs to be stable for that ( or change in all components ) is the 'object model' ( including configuration, factories, etc ). Right now I'm convinced that a future version of jk2 should either switch to or provide support for NSCOM and COM. Most likely this should be done on top, i.e. add an IDL and a COM factory for each component and use some conditional compilation to make sure that each jk component is compiled as COM on windows, NSCOM if mozilla COM is available ( i.e. on unix ). The only thing that I still need to check is if it is possible to also hook into gnome or kde object models. Costin Mladen Turk wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ignacio J. Ortega >> >> And i agree with Henri also ( and i dont understand your >> "writing it twice" argument ) that to open a Branch right >> now, is another development nightmare.. >> > > Well, didn't think that it would require a new branch. > Ok, can we at least agree to the following. > > 1. Apache2 uses APR > 2. IIS uses APR > 3. Apache1 can use the APR. > > Or to be specific: > There is only one build configuration right now that doesn't necessary > need the APR, but is crippled to use only the socket connector. > > My question is that make sense? > > You may name the version whatever you like 2.1.0 or 2.0.1, doesn't > matter at all to me, but simply drop the option to build without APR. > Would It be such a big step forward to open a new branch, I don't think > so. > > > MT. -- Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
