On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Scott Sanders wrote: > Could we replace daemon with this if this is the case. Daemon is > slightly more descriptive than wrapper IMHO. > > +1 either way.
I'm agreeing with Scott here. If Remy (one of the three people listed as an initial committer to daemon) says wrapper has more features and he's giving his +1, then we should just replace the daemon component with wrapper (I like the "daemon" name better anyway). No vote is necessary to modify replace the sandbox daemon with wrapper. If you want to skip the sandbox and go directly to commons component, I'd be okay with that (+1) if it was renamed. "Wrapper" is a bit too generic for me. michael > > Scott > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Remy Maucherat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 11:39 PM > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: new 'wrapper' commons component > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I would like to propose a new common component, based on > > code used in > > > tomcat, avalon and other java servers to work as NT > > services and unix > > > daemons. > > > > > > The initial code is based on the wrapper project at > > sourceforge, and > > > will replace ( and be merged with ) the other components that > > > duplicate the same functionality ( daemon, jk_nt_service, etc). > > > > > > Attached is the proposal, please send your votes. > > > > +1. > > > > 'wrapper' has more advanced features than all the other > > service wrappers currently used @Jakarta (or elsewhere). > > > > Remy > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > <mailto:commons-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For > > additional commands, > > e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
