Web connectrors [was: RE: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]
Has anyone shown any interest in developing a Tomcat 4.0 connector for IIS? If not this is actually something that I'd like to work on. Unfortuntely, it is going to be a month or more before I could devote a lot of time to it. > -Original Message- > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 2:00 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info > > > GOMEZ Henri wrote: > > > [finally ... a technical issue!] > >I still didn't understand why TC 4.0 didn't select mod_jk as > >their connector to WebServer. The code is clean and many bugs > >are removed. A web server connector is not an easy piece of cake > >so why reinvent the whell ?-( > > > > Tomcat 4.0 did not select mod_jk for several reasons. The most > important ones > are at the top: > > * MOD_JK (like MOD_JSERV before it) has no clue what a web > application is. This forces you to configure many items twice -- > once in the web.xml file and once in the Apache configuration, > which is a pretty serious imposition on people trying to administer > the combination. > > * While the 2.2 spec was silent in many areas, the 2.3 spec will > require an Apache+Tomcat combination to obey *all* the requirements > of the spec (same rules as for any other container). This means that > the things in web.xml *must* be respected. For example, a security > constraint in a web.xml file must be enforced, even on a static resource > that is served by Apache instead of Tomcat. Substantial modifications > to MOD_JK would be needed to make this work (primarily in adding a > two-way exchange of configuration information). > > * MOD_JK had no committers interested in maintaining it, at the time > that the decision was made. Subsequent to that time, several > volunteers have surfaced, including at least one person interested in > supporting MOD_JK under Tomcat 4.0. That would be fine with me, > as long as the result obeys all the rules. > > Craig McClanahan > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
GOMEZ Henri wrote: > [finally ... a technical issue!] >I still didn't understand why TC 4.0 didn't select mod_jk as >their connector to WebServer. The code is clean and many bugs >are removed. A web server connector is not an easy piece of cake >so why reinvent the whell ?-( > Tomcat 4.0 did not select mod_jk for several reasons. The most important ones are at the top: * MOD_JK (like MOD_JSERV before it) has no clue what a web application is. This forces you to configure many items twice -- once in the web.xml file and once in the Apache configuration, which is a pretty serious imposition on people trying to administer the combination. * While the 2.2 spec was silent in many areas, the 2.3 spec will require an Apache+Tomcat combination to obey *all* the requirements of the spec (same rules as for any other container). This means that the things in web.xml *must* be respected. For example, a security constraint in a web.xml file must be enforced, even on a static resource that is served by Apache instead of Tomcat. Substantial modifications to MOD_JK would be needed to make this work (primarily in adding a two-way exchange of configuration information). * MOD_JK had no committers interested in maintaining it, at the time that the decision was made. Subsequent to that time, several volunteers have surfaced, including at least one person interested in supporting MOD_JK under Tomcat 4.0. That would be fine with me, as long as the result obeys all the rules. Craig McClanahan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
> > Well, I think I have to clear few things up. > > > > I already announced ( probably not clearly enough ) my intention to give > > up and spend my free time in better ways. This is a form of vote, BTW. > > As far as I can recall, you been saying that, but you have also > said you would stay and help maintain the 3.x code base. It's hard > to tell what your intentions are when you keep switching back and > forth. Again - 3.x is the only reason I'm still here, and I want to finish it as soon as possible and be free. If it is done right, it'll be possible to add features ( with a Servlet2.3 facade as the most important one ) independently - and I'll probably spend the time doing that - but without going through this nightmare. > if we release the current HEAD as the next 3.x version, as opposed to > continue to do bugfixes based on 3.2.1. From what I've seen so far, all Maybe the same as releasing 3.2 instead of doing bugfixes for 3.1 ? After all the same process was used, and 3.2 is just an intermediary step. > more structured, more comments, performance improvements, etc. But it's > a *lot* of changes, and from my limited testing it's clear that there > are new bugs introduced (no surprise, that's what happens when you do Mea culpa for the bugs, but most of the changes were just moving code around and improving the interface between modules. > major refactoring). This means that we need active committers that > understand the new architecture if we are going to make it the next > 3.x. You can try to downplay your role in this as much as you like; the > fact remains that 90% (or more) of all commits on this version have > your name on them. I have a good percent of the 3.2 commits also - and the architecture is as different as 3.2 is from 3.1. As we all know, 3.0 was quite ugly, yet we were able to get quite a few people involved ( even if .next was around claiming to be the coolest thing ). And remember that none of the original authors of tomcat are around or active - including the one who designed it. And as I said, I'll not be that far away - I plan to add new modules and features, port back some valves, improve modules - I just don't want to have to fight every step of the way or get back what I've got so far. > I take offense at this. You make it sound as if the meeting is just > for show. That's absolutely not the case. And as Jon said, all important > discussions about this have taken place in the open on this list; Costin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Same feeling here. Paulo > -Original Message- > From: Larry Isaacs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 15:35 > > I think in the long run, the community will be better served by a released > 3.3. It may have some different bugs, but I think it will eventually have > fewer bugs and quirks and be more maintainable as well. > > The need here at SAS Institute with respect to the Java IDE I work on is > for a Servlet 2.2/JSP 1.1 container. I don't expect that to change for > at least 6 months to a year. As a result, my primary focus will remain > on Tomcat 3.x and don't plan on "leaving". > > Cheers, > Larry - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
> From: Hans Bergsten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > One of the most important things I'm trying to get a grip on is what > the pros and cons are for the "community" (both developers and users) > if we release the current HEAD as the next 3.x version, as opposed to > continue to do bugfixes based on 3.2.1. From what I've seen > so far, all > the work you and others have done since 3.2 seems to be for > the better; > more structured, more comments, performance improvements, > etc. But it's > a *lot* of changes, and from my limited testing it's clear that there > are new bugs introduced (no surprise, that's what happens when you do > major refactoring). This means that we need active committers that > understand the new architecture if we are going to make it the next > 3.x. You can try to downplay your role in this as much as you > like; the > fact remains that 90% (or more) of all commits on this version have > your name on them. So when you now say that you give up, > you're making > it much harder for me to consider a 3.x based on the HEAD > code. Chances > are that if you leave, the three or four other committers > that have been > actively working on the refactoring with you will go with > you. In that > scenario it's probably better for the community to continue the 3.x > branch based on 3.2, since it's been battle tested and therefore is > likely to have fewer bugs and it's compatible with the modifications > and additions users have done privately. Having worked with both 3.2 and 3.3 code, I don't consider the 3.2 as being very maintainable. By this I mean, that it's code is still convoluted enough to make bug fixing difficult if not near impossible in some situations. Implementing bug fixes in 3.2.x will carry a higher risk of introducing new bugs than in a released 3.3. I know Craig ran into this when fixing BugRat Report #316. This was prior to the initial Tomcat 3.2 release, where he appropriately added "response.flushbuffer()" to RequestDispatcherImpl.include(). This fixes the bug but adds a "quirk" to Tomcat's RD.include(). Given the choice of trying to fix something like this in 3.2.x, or attempting a fix in 3.3, I think I would have much better success in 3.3. I think in the long run, the community will be better served by a released 3.3. It may have some different bugs, but I think it will eventually have fewer bugs and quirks and be more maintainable as well. The need here at SAS Institute with respect to the Java IDE I work on is for a Servlet 2.2/JSP 1.1 container. I don't expect that to change for at least 6 months to a year. As a result, my primary focus will remain on Tomcat 3.x and don't plan on "leaving". Cheers, Larry - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
At 11:04 15/1/01 +0100, GOMEZ Henri wrote: >Yes 3.3 = 3.2 + .1, no more a revolution (allready acted) but a necessary >evolution. The revolution will be TC 4.0 but when will it be available for >production (connectors and extensive testing). Also TC 4.0 need many >externals >stuff to build (ie JMX) that is not OpenSourced. A FYI but I believe enhydra has reimplemented JMX and a few agents - haven't looked enought at it yet but it is something to think about. Cheers, Pete *-* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-* - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Hola a Todos: > My vote will be to have a Tomcat 3.3 beta release as soon as > possible since > many of us just need evolution (and JDK 1.1) not revolution. > +1 Saludos , Ignacio J. Ortega - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
>I already announced ( probably not clearly enough ) my >intention to give >up and spend my free time in better ways. This is a form of vote, BTW. A sad news. I follow many open source projects but I rarely saw someone as active as you (may be Ralf S. Engelschall another fine Apache Guru). >The only thing that keeps me subscribed to this list is the fact that I > wanted to finish my work on tomcat3 - quite a few people put a lot of >their time and effort into it, and I'll do whatever I can to make sure >their work is not lost. Yes, we must have a release of Tomcat 3.3 : 1) Cleaner and easier to understand than Tomcat 3.2 2) The only evolution release (ie > 3.2) with a working connector to others WebServer (ie Apache and mod_jk) I still didn't understand why TC 4.0 didn't select mod_jk as their connector to WebServer. The code is clean and many bugs are removed. A web server connector is not an easy piece of cake so why reinvent the whell ?-( 3) It run with just a JDK 1.1. May be a vital requirement for many sites around which can't upgrade to JDK 1.2. >I don't think my presence to the PMC meeting can bring >anything good - I >think most of the decisions have already been taken, and most of the >games done. It seems things have already been debated in productive >closed-lists, and 1/2 of the judges are representing one side. I have a >lot of respect for the other 1/2, but their (lack of ) open attitude >during recent months is one of the main reasons for me wanting >to get out of this project as soon as possible. I hope you'll reconsider this decision. We need someone to lead the Tomcat 3.3 project. Many consider Tomcat 3.3 to be just what they need as Servlet Engine. JDK 1.1 and basta. >In any case, the only thing I can do is to make clear that I ( as still >a commiter on this project ) believe that tomcat 3.3 is to >tomcat 3.2 what >3.2 is to 3.1 - a step forward and an evolution in the right >direction. Yes 3.3 = 3.2 + .1, no more a revolution (allready acted) but a necessary evolution. The revolution will be TC 4.0 but when will it be available for production (connectors and extensive testing). Also TC 4.0 need many externals stuff to build (ie JMX) that is not OpenSourced. >I'm very happy with the way our evolution worked. The fact that so many >people contributed so much ( Gal, Sam, Larry, Nacho, Alex, Glen, Henri, >Dan - and everyone else ) is what makes tomcat 3.x a great >success. And again, tomcat 3.3 is not my baby - all I did was >to clean up and move code around trying to learn from Apache2.0 and others. >The original design is the main value, and almost all features have been >implemented by other people. My vote will be to have a Tomcat 3.3 beta release as soon as possible since many of us just need evolution (and JDK 1.1) not revolution. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Well, I think I have to clear few things up. > > I already announced ( probably not clearly enough ) my intention to give > up and spend my free time in better ways. This is a form of vote, BTW. As far as I can recall, you been saying that, but you have also said you would stay and help maintain the 3.x code base. It's hard to tell what your intentions are when you keep switching back and forth. I'm spending this weekend to go through a lot of the discussions about this issue, compare the 3.2.1 code to the HEAD of the jakarta-tomcat repository, look at the CVS commit messages, and in general trying to form an opinion about what I feel is best for the project. One of the most important things I'm trying to get a grip on is what the pros and cons are for the "community" (both developers and users) if we release the current HEAD as the next 3.x version, as opposed to continue to do bugfixes based on 3.2.1. From what I've seen so far, all the work you and others have done since 3.2 seems to be for the better; more structured, more comments, performance improvements, etc. But it's a *lot* of changes, and from my limited testing it's clear that there are new bugs introduced (no surprise, that's what happens when you do major refactoring). This means that we need active committers that understand the new architecture if we are going to make it the next 3.x. You can try to downplay your role in this as much as you like; the fact remains that 90% (or more) of all commits on this version have your name on them. So when you now say that you give up, you're making it much harder for me to consider a 3.x based on the HEAD code. Chances are that if you leave, the three or four other committers that have been actively working on the refactoring with you will go with you. In that scenario it's probably better for the community to continue the 3.x branch based on 3.2, since it's been battle tested and therefore is likely to have fewer bugs and it's compatible with the modifications and additions users have done privately. Note that I have not made up my mind on this yet, and your actions here play a huge role in how I will argue at the meeting. > [...] > I don't think my presence to the PMC meeting can bring anything good - I > think most of the decisions have already been taken, and most of the > games done. It seems things have already been debated in productive > closed-lists, and 1/2 of the judges are representing one side. I have a > lot of respect for the other 1/2, but their (lack of ) open attitude > during recent months is one of the main reasons for me wanting to get out > of this project as soon as possible. I take offense at this. You make it sound as if the meeting is just for show. That's absolutely not the case. And as Jon said, all important discussions about this have taken place in the open on this list; there's no conspiracy here! I'm in favor of giving anyone read access to the PMC list if that will improve the feeling that decisions like this are being made behind closed doors, and I will make a motion that we add a discussion about this to the agenda for the meeting. But for those who really want to believe that there's a conspiracy, I'm not sure anything helps ... Again I can only reiterate what Jon has said in a couple of mails; very little is being decided and done by the PMC (maybe too little). We are all volunteers with busy schedules. It's on the developers list the action is. PMC basically just approves new subprojects and, for the first time ever in the upcoming meeting, resolves major issues when it's clear that they can't be resolved on the developers list. > [...] Hans -- Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Well, I think I have to clear few things up. I already announced ( probably not clearly enough ) my intention to give up and spend my free time in better ways. This is a form of vote, BTW. The only thing that keeps me subscribed to this list is the fact that I wanted to finish my work on tomcat3 - quite a few people put a lot of their time and effort into it, and I'll do whatever I can to make sure their work is not lost. I don't think my presence to the PMC meeting can bring anything good - I think most of the decisions have already been taken, and most of the games done. It seems things have already been debated in productive closed-lists, and 1/2 of the judges are representing one side. I have a lot of respect for the other 1/2, but their (lack of ) open attitude during recent months is one of the main reasons for me wanting to get out of this project as soon as possible. In any case, the only thing I can do is to make clear that I ( as still a commiter on this project ) believe that tomcat 3.3 is to tomcat 3.2 what 3.2 is to 3.1 - a step forward and an evolution in the right direction. If you want to help - do the same, write to the list stating your opinion ( and don't answer to any flame ). Or write to any PMC member you like, and please mention the reasons for not writing to the list. A +1 is enough if you don't want to add more. I'm very happy with the way our evolution worked. The fact that so many people contributed so much ( Gal, Sam, Larry, Nacho, Alex, Glen, Henri, Dan - and everyone else ) is what makes tomcat 3.x a great success. And again, tomcat 3.3 is not my baby - all I did was to clean up and move code around trying to learn from Apache2.0 and others. The original design is the main value, and almost all features have been implemented by other people. I'm waiting for the moment they feel Catalina is completed and has all the promised features and it's ready to be compared with Tomcat 3. -- Costin P.S. I'll try to call in, if a line is available - and I would love to meet those of you in Bay Area, but I'm afraid my presence to the meeting will give them a chance to turn things into a personal thing ( I'm the villain, and as a consequence tc3.3 is bad ) - and I don't want to distract the attention from more important issues. BTW, 3.3 is the least important issue in this meeting - the code exists and no meeting can change that. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
At 05:43 13/1/01 -0800, Hans Bergsten wrote: >If you have any interest in the future of the Jakarta project, I think you >should come. I know it's out of context but this neatly summarizes it doesn't it ;) What you may ask - well let me elaborate. When I first started working with Apache peeps it was great - I never heard any complaints or had any issues. It was Stefano who introduced of sorts to it all so if I wanted something I would bug him and it would happen ;) Then I started hearing grumblings from a few people. Usually they involved one of these points 1. It is too slow to get projects hosted at Apache unless you are good friends with PMC members 2. Some people were trying to bully/intimadate others because they were on the PMC/were in the clique 3. Outside projects had to work to get hosted rather than Apache working to aquire them I pretty much ignored them as they didn't effect me and to a large extent I don't care for the politicing. A bit later I heard even worse criticism about the process mainly from a few bitter individuals/groups thou I think most of what they said was unwarranted so it is of no use repeating it here. One thing I noticed was that some of the politicers seemed to be under stress and a little overworked - and consequently a little short ;) Recently I have been forced to stick my head up and look around at this structure. I am not a member of apache so immediately a number of doors were closed. I tried asking people things and basically they said - "I dunno" to 90% of the questions. I initially presumed it was because most people weren't members. So I asked a member and they were in the dark aswell ... hmmm. Aparently management still takes place behind closed doors away from the groups own members ! Eek. Not pretty - another member also noted this and expressed the fact they were for intents powerless to effect this. Of course I see these things as problems. So what I would like is for them to be addressed in some form ;) I have been thinking how I would do it and I came to the conclusion that the only way to run it is by "opening" management up. This is an opensource group so why not "opensource" the leadership? Currently jakarta is led from behind closed doors by privlidged members. You can not gain access - at least easily - to the resources within Apache. I know there is mailing lists that the public is restricted from accessing and only the clique may get in - however why is this necessary ? I understand that there may be - on rare occasions - a need to discuss details under a NDA and thus outside the public eye. However - what about the remainder of the time. Is there any need to exclude the rest of the community? This is not the only exclusionary practices I have noticed either. This meeting proposed is another example of practices that (possibly inadvertently) are exclusionary. The vast majority of the jakarta/java apache community would find it impossible to actually participate due to practical reasons. Personally it would cost me about $4000 to go factoring in travel, accomodation and time-off - and a phone call while cheaper would still run me up just under $1000 (depends on mapping to local timezone). Consequently the decisions for the community will be made by a presumably close-nit, geographically close group of friends that more than likely share similar opinions. So how is it possible that they could possibly represent the views of the community? For instance - it is somewhat disturbing that the fate of ant is going to be decided at this meeting when the majority of active committers are not present. Even more disturbing is that it is the person who has been focus of conflict on ant and set out in many ways to destroy the community and rebuild it in his own image that will be preciding over the discussion and consequently will have a large say in the matter. Now I am not saying it is the fault of anyone - I believe the PM have the best intentions at heart and do put in a lot to make it work. However there is the saying "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" ;) I believe opening the organisation would help this. Hopefully people would be able to become more aware of the resources at Apache (like our JCP rep), more willing to help out with boring administrative stuff (most people aren't aware you can "patch" the website) and generally relieve the workload on PMC. It would also be one step closer to building a better community. There could be a few objections but I believe if you are not comfortable saying something in public then you probably shouldn't be saying it in the first place ;) Another change that could occur is the restriction of "official" face-to-face meetings to times like ApacheCon. It would be at this time that AGMs/votes/whatever could take place so you get high bandwidth and high fidelity. This still leaves the problem of realtime/high-bandwidth collaboration. No matter what you do there are going to be people who
Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Costin, It would be really good if you could reconsider what you said and attend/call into the meeting. As a principal developer of the 3.x tree your viewpoint, input and experience should feed into the decision making process. The PMC (not withstanding any particular member's behaviour) has been no paragon of project management w.r.t the Jakarta project. Here's an opportunity for you to think and bring up what could be changed w.r.t the PMC and the rest of it all. Please don't let someone's behaviour affect your attitude about this project. Remember that it takes all kinds. So just dismiss it as a minor PITA and try to focus on things that are more important (to you). [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >*) Tomcat 3.x vs. Tomcat 4.x. We will be reaching a final decision > >about the future of the Tomcat source base and what our process > >for managing the factors that created the current situation will > >be moving forward. For reference you may want to read: > > > >http://www.x180.net/Mutterings/Apache/rules.html > > > >The Chairman hereby requests that parties from both sides of this > >debate be present at this meeting to discuss. > > Given the PMC composition and the opinions expressed so far by some of the > PMC members and the silence of the others, I'm sure you'll understand > why I want to stop "beeing a party" of this project in general. > > If anyone wants to "debate" with Jon - good luck, I had > enough of that already, and I have a feeling that even the subject of the > debate is wrongly choosen - ( the PMC "reaching final decisions about > the tomcat source" in 1/4 of an afternoon debate, instead of the project > commiters ). > > IMHO behaviors like Jon's should be the subject of the debate - but it > seems Jon is a PMC member and one of the organizers of the meeting. > > ( in any case, I don't think I'm a "side" of any debate regarding tomcat - > I just contributed code and time to a project and got flames back ) > > Costin > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Peace, Anil +<:-) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >*) Tomcat 3.x vs. Tomcat 4.x. We will be reaching a final decision > >about the future of the Tomcat source base and what our process > >for managing the factors that created the current situation will > >be moving forward. For reference you may want to read: > > > >http://www.x180.net/Mutterings/Apache/rules.html > > > >The Chairman hereby requests that parties from both sides of this > >debate be present at this meeting to discuss. > > Given the PMC composition and the opinions expressed so far by some of the > PMC members and the silence of the others, I'm sure you'll understand > why I want to stop "beeing a party" of this project in general. I was silent in the most recent discussion on this list because I have already expressed my opinions about the issue earlier and didn't find the latest debate productive. > If anyone wants to "debate" with Jon - good luck, I had > enough of that already, and I have a feeling that even the subject of the > debate is wrongly choosen - ( the PMC "reaching final decisions about > the tomcat source" in 1/4 of an afternoon debate, instead of the project > commiters ). The meeting is not a "debate with Jon"; it's a PMC meeting with "open doors". Jon is only one of seven PMC members, and the meeting will also be attended by ASF board members. If you have any interest in the future of the Jakarta project, I think you should come. > IMHO behaviors like Jon's should be the subject of the debate - but it > seems Jon is a PMC member and one of the organizers of the meeting. I don't always agree with what Jon says, but how he behaves is up to him and hardly something I want on the agenda for a meeting ;-) And for the record, it was James that called the meeting. Hans > ( in any case, I don't think I'm a "side" of any debate regarding tomcat - > I just contributed code and time to a project and got flames back ) > > Costin -- Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
> I for one did not see continuing this discussion on tomcat dev as being > productive. It has continued on the PMC mailing list. ... > The role of the PMC in such decisions will be a topic of discussion. In > fact, that is precisely the discussion that has continued in the PMC > mailing list. Of course, it would be nice to make the list archive available - since the PMC is "deciding the future of tomcat" I guess commiters should at least be able to read the debate. ( and have an example of "productive" debate - which is probably easier when one side have the representation it has ). I'm sure anyone who will participate to the Bay Area meeting would like to have access to it. Costin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
All the posting was very wise and balanced, as usual with Sam. I think that the sentence I kept in this reply is a key one. I hope that Costin will end up defending his right to pursue his convictions, even if his ideas are not so popular now. I hope that other people will remember the advantages of diversity. Catalina was not main stream all the time, was it? Have fun, Paulo > -Original Message- > From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 13:38 > > > The right of committers to pursue their convictions, independent of the > popularity of their ideas at the time, is an important "side" of the > debate. > > - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Costin Manolache wrote: > > Given the PMC composition and the opinions expressed so far > by some of the PMC members and the silence of the others, > I'm sure you'll understand why I want to stop "beeing a party" > of this project in general. I for one did not see continuing this discussion on tomcat dev as being productive. It has continued on the PMC mailing list. > If anyone wants to "debate" with Jon - good luck, I had > enough of that already, and I have a feeling that even the > subject of the debate is wrongly choosen - ( the PMC "reaching > final decisions about the tomcat source" in 1/4 of an > afternoon debate, instead of the project commiters ). The role of the PMC in such decisions will be a topic of discussion. In fact, that is precisely the discussion that has continued in the PMC mailing list. Some feel that the decision was already made by the Tomcat committers. > IMHO behaviors like Jon's should be the subject of the > debate - but it seems Jon is a PMC member and one of the > organizers of the meeting. Jon has strong opinions, and voiced then in an unambiguous fashion. When asked to defer, he did. Flames are a fact of life in open source. > ( in any case, I don't think I'm a "side" of any debate > regarding tomcat - I just contributed code and time to a > project and got flames back ) The right of committers to pursue their convictions, independent of the popularity of their ideas at the time, is an important "side" of the debate. - Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 01/13/2001 03:58:41 AM Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info >*) Tomcat 3.x vs. Tomcat 4.x. We will be reaching a final decision >about the future of the Tomcat source base and what our process >for managing the factors that created the current situation will >be moving forward. For reference you may want to read: > >http://www.x180.net/Mutterings/Apache/rules.html > >The Chairman hereby requests that parties from both sides of this >debate be present at this meeting to discuss. Given the PMC composition and the opinions expressed so far by some of the PMC members and the silence of the others, I'm sure you'll understand why I want to stop "beeing a party" of this project in general. If anyone wants to "debate" with Jon - good luck, I had enough of that already, and I have a feeling that even the subject of the debate is wrongly choosen - ( the PMC "reaching final decisions about the tomcat source" in 1/4 of an afternoon debate, instead of the project commiters ). IMHO behaviors like Jon's should be the subject of the debate - but it seems Jon is a PMC member and one of the organizers of the meeting. ( in any case, I don't think I'm a "side" of any debate regarding tomcat - I just contributed code and time to a project and got flames back ) Costin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
>*) Tomcat 3.x vs. Tomcat 4.x. We will be reaching a final decision >about the future of the Tomcat source base and what our process >for managing the factors that created the current situation will >be moving forward. For reference you may want to read: > >http://www.x180.net/Mutterings/Apache/rules.html > >The Chairman hereby requests that parties from both sides of this >debate be present at this meeting to discuss. Given the PMC composition and the opinions expressed so far by some of the PMC members and the silence of the others, I'm sure you'll understand why I want to stop "beeing a party" of this project in general. If anyone wants to "debate" with Jon - good luck, I had enough of that already, and I have a feeling that even the subject of the debate is wrongly choosen - ( the PMC "reaching final decisions about the tomcat source" in 1/4 of an afternoon debate, instead of the project commiters ). IMHO behaviors like Jon's should be the subject of the debate - but it seems Jon is a PMC member and one of the organizers of the meeting. ( in any case, I don't think I'm a "side" of any debate regarding tomcat - I just contributed code and time to a project and got flames back ) Costin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
-- James Duncan Davidson[EMAIL PROTECTED] !try; do() -- Forwarded Message From: James Duncan Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:16:24 -0800 To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info As promised, here's the information for the Jakarta PMC meeting. WHEN: Tuesday Jan 16th 1:00PM PDT I anticipate that this meeting could span the entire afternoon. Please plan accordingly. WHERE: CollabNet 8000 Marina Boulevard Suite 600 Brisbane, CA 94005-1865 For more info including directions see: http://www.collab.net/about/contact.html WHO: This is a meeting for the Jakarta PMC members and the PMC members will be primary participants in this meeting. However, it will be an open door meeting. Anybody who is a committer to any project under the Jakarta umbrella is welcome to attend and observe. As well anybody interested in the future of the Jakarta project is welcome. We have had requests for people to observe the proceedings for educational purposes -- these folks as well are welcome. The PMC Chairman reserves the right to limit participation by any observer if circumstances warrant. DIAL-IN INFORMATION: Number: 954-797-1657 Participant Code: 507609 Note, we do have a maximum number of 20 concurrent connections available on the conference calling system. Please be aware of this. The purpose of the dial in number is to allow committers who can not otherwise attend this meeting to observe to have visibility into the meeting. If you are in the Bay Area, please attend the meeting in person rather than calling in so that we can maximize lines for people that absolutely can not be present in person. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The ASF By-Laws states the following about PMC's: "Section 6.3. Project Management Committees. In addition to the officers of the corporation, the Board of Directors may, by resolution, establish one or more Project Management Committees consisting of at least one officer of the corporation, who shall be designated chairman of such committee, and may include one or more other members of the corporation. Unless elected or appointed as an officer in accordance with Sections 6.1 and 6.4 of these Bylaws, a member of a Project Management Committee shall not be deemed an officer of the corporation. Each Project Management Committee shall be responsible for the active management of one or more projects identified by resolution of the Board of Directors which may include, without limitation, the creation or maintenance of "open-source" software for distribution to the public at no charge. Subject to the direction of the Board of Directors, the chairman of each Project Management Committee shall be primarily responsible for project(s) managed by such committee, and he or she shall establish rules and procedures for the day to day management of project(s) for which the committee is responsible. The Board of Directors of the corporation may, by resolution, terminate a Project Management Committee at any time. " This section of the ASF By-Laws is what defines what the PMCs are and how they can act. AGENDA: *) Definition of the scope of the Jakarta Project. This is required by the Chairman of the ASF and the ASF Board. At the current time the Chairman feels that many of the projects in the Jakarta and XML projects are out of scope. Either we define a new scope and propose it to the board, or we propose that certain subprojects be moved to their own, different projects with their own scope. The result of this action item will be presented to the Board for its consideration. As part of this bullet point, I will be moving that we propose to the board the creation of a separate, top level project for Ant. *) Formalization of a subproject responsibility hierarchy. The PMC, and its chairman, are responsible for the day to day operations of the subprojects contained by the Jakarta Project. Currently the Jakarta project has too many codebases for the PMC and Chairman to oversee directly. As a solution, the PMC will be appointing responsible parties for each of the subprojects who will be responsible for the day to day operations of that subproject. These appointees will be responsible to the PMC chairman. *) Tomcat 3.x vs. Tomcat 4.x. We will be reaching a final decision about the future of the Tomcat source base and what our process for managing the factors that created the current situation will be moving forward. For reference you may want to read: http://www.x180.net/Mutterings/Apach
