On 03/03/2016 16:41, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 03/03/2016 15:41, Christopher Schultz wrote:
>> Mark,
>>
>> On 3/1/16 5:12 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> To summarise where I think this discussion is going:
>>>
>>> - Create 8.5.x from 9.0.x with the following changes
>>> - revert all changes to spec APIs
>>
>> I would argue that anything that has been added (in TC9) can stay; only
>> revert the removals and possibly any deprecations.
>
> There are no removals.
>
> The spec APIs have to be correct. Our spec API JARs are used in various
> places and if we starting shipping a Servlet 3.1+ API we'll create the
> potential to cause all sorts of problems.
>
>>> - make any necessary changes to work with Java 7
>>>
>>> - Release 8.0.x and 8.5.x in parallel for ~6 months then stop 8.0.x
>>> releases
>>
>> Does this have implications for whether or not we can claim
>> spec-compatibility? Tomcat 8.5 would be
>> servlet-3.1-except-for-that-Java-7-support-thing... so can we claim that
>> Tomcat 8.5 officially supports the servlet 3.1 specification? Do we even
>> care?
>
> 8.5 will be as spec compliant as 8.0.
> - It will run on Java 7.
> - The spec APIs will be identical between versions.
> - It will, as far as we know, be compliant with all
> four specs it implements
>
> We haven't had access to the TCK for quite some time. It is a useful
> additional check that in an ideal world I'd like to have back but not
> having it doesn't appear to be causing the project any harm.
One thought I had for BIO support was that we could add something like
this to handle the case where the user has explicitly selected BIO
public class Http11Protocol extends Http11NioProtocol {
public Http11Protocol() {
super();
log.warn("BIO connector removed. Using NIO instead.");
}
}
And the same for AJP.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
