Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Peter Donald]

At 12:52  17/1/01 -0800, Randall Parker wrote:
>Peter,
>
>Amazingly expensive. Calling from the US to Australia is incredibly cheap
by comparison. Check out:
> http://1010phonerates.com/aus_etc.html

I found some cheaper options (75c a minute daytime, 20c a minute at certain
periods at night) but unfortunately Australia is/was run by a telco
monopoly ;( The only cheaper option is the NetPhone ;)


>1) Record the meetings for WAV or MPEG download afterward. Then people can
go back and find out what decisions were made and why.

+1

>2) Have a live feed for those whose connections are high enough. Heck,
even put in a camera or three and feed them live as well.

could be too costly/too much work to the organizer I suspect.
>
>3) Allow people to use internet phone chat s/w to add their comments in
some parts of the meeting set aside for remote participants.

+1
;)


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: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Randall Parker]

Speaking as a single user I have to say that I hope there is a 3.3. 4.0 sounds like it 
is so far off and in the mean time having a much faster container that has a variety 
of useful enhancements sounds good 
to me. Also, the idea of perfecting something by fixing architectural shortcomings and 
by bringing in stufff that didn't have time to make it into the last release has a lot 
of appeal.

I'd also like to draw an analogy with Linux: A tremendous amount of effort continued 
to go into improving the 2.2.x kernels while the 2.3.x tree was acfive. Also, many 
improvements were ported back to 
2.2.x. Granted, that takes more labour. You have to make that judgement call since you 
are much more labour limited than Linux is (its the Apollo moonshot of our era ). 
But its not inherently 
philosophically bad to try to improve the production software, even in major ways, 
while the next major version gets developed. In fact, it takes pressure off making a 
premature early release of the next big 
.0 version.

Another thing that something like 3.3 could do would be to try out some ideas that 
would get used out there and further inform 4.0 decision making.

As for what is the right decision: I don't know. The amount of info needed to make 
this decision is way way beyond the amount I have. I'm aware of my ignorance.

As for the personality clashes evidenced here: The people who most strongly feel that 
other people are behaving out of line are in many cases behaving out of line as well. 
Don't spend so much time 
thinking ill and speaking ill of your fellow humans. Its bad for you and for the 
project. Mellow out kids. This is supposed to be fun. If you don't get your way or you 
do get your way you will still be dead in the 
long run. 

On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:09:15 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>Therefore, I really don't see how Costin wanting to do a 3.3 is "against
>what everyone voted for."  I think it is a separate issue:  How long will
>the Jakarta Project and its community support the 3.x codebase in terms of
>enhancements, improvements, security fixes, etc.  Or, as you say:  "When
>does it stop?"



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Randall Parker]

Peter,

Amazingly expensive. Calling from the US to Australia is incredibly cheap by 
comparison. Check out:
 http://1010phonerates.com/aus_etc.html

As for the openness of the meetings, I have a few suggestions. This is the internet 
age. We are internet kinds of guys. How about using it:

1) Record the meetings for WAV or MPEG download afterward. Then people can go back and 
find out what decisions were made and why.

2) Have a live feed for those whose connections are high enough. Heck, even put in a 
camera or three and feed them live as well.

3) Allow people to use internet phone chat s/w to add their comments in some parts of 
the meeting set aside for remote participants.


On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:42:36 +1100, Peter Donald wrote:

>>$1000 for a couple hour phone call? I find that impossible to believe. What
>>phone company are you using?
>
>Either $4 or $8 a minute from Melbourne, Australia during daytime using
>telstra (Australias main provider).



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]

[cmanolache]

> Yeah, I've used variations on this pattern to help save architectures 
> that were spiralling out of control.

You may also check:
http://jakarta.apache.org/cvsweb/index.cgi/~checkout~/jakarta-tomcat/src/doc/internal.html

( it's not up-to-date, a everything is now much cleaner, and most of the
optimizations have been made )

Another interesting source of information is Apache 1.3 and Apache 2.0,
and the HOOKS mechanism introduced in 2.0. 

Tomcat 3.3 is following the same model and direction ( by providing more
hooks and a more flexible mechanism to deal with the chains ).

It should also be noted that 3.3 supports _both_ Valves ( i.e. a chain
on the invoke() hook ) and Apache style hooks ( auth, config, error
handling, mpm,  etc ). Of course, most 3.3 modules are using the more
flexible aproach and the specialized chains instead. 

You may also note that most web servers ( IIS, NES ) are using the same (
multiple chains ) pattern as Tomcat 3.3.

( the "valve" chain has allways been possible in tomcat3.x, by extending
Handler/ServletWrapper using the same pattern, but never used because of
the belief that Apache2.0 model is better. The reason for exposing it more
in 3.3 is to allow porting of valves - as independent and standalone
modules - from 4.0, i.e. to reuse existing code instead of reinventing it
for some usefull modules )


BTW, the AccessLogValve has already been adapted ( as a 3.3 module), and
will be made available soon ( after I find a place to distribute the
modules out of ). ( I find to be very usefull, and it was the first test
that the 3.3 model works and is flexible enough ).

--
Costin



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]

[Paul Speed]

"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
> 
> Paul Speed wrote:
> 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > Can you argue about how Valve's single chain of command ( where
> > > authentication, generation, etc are done in a single invoke() ) can
> > > be better than what all other server are doing ( and Apache 2.0
> > > moves to a different level with the flexible HOOK mechanism ?
> > >
> >
> > Actually, this is a discussion I would like to see happen.  I
> > think that I can actually argue for Valves.  Admittedly, I know little
> > about the actual implementations but I am very familiar with the
> > patterns used in Tomcat 3.x and Tomcat 4.x and I have seen much of the
> > discussions on this list.  However, in other projects I have converted
> > several architectures using patterns similar to 3.x to be more like the
> > Valve approach.  We did it to shorten development times and improve
> > developer productivity.  Performance wasn't our main goal but in all
> > but one case performance improved.
> >
> 
> Valves implement the "Chain of Responsibility" design pattern in the GoF book.
> You will also see a very similar programming model in the way that the
> javax.servlet.Filter APIs are defined in the Servlet Specification, Version 2.3
> Proposed Final Draft -- after wrestling with lots of alternatives, the expert
> group concluded that this was the most appropriate programming model for
> exposing similar functionality at the application level.

Yeah, I've used variations on this pattern to help save architectures 
that were spiralling out of control.

> 
> >
> > What I would like to see is a frank analysis of this topic.
> > If those "in the know" do not have the time then I will attempt to
> > do a brief analysis myself in the coming weeks.  It will take research
> > on my part whereas some of you might know the answers off the top of
> > your head.
> >
> 
> I did an analysis on this topic in August, when Catalina was being formally
> proposed -- it is still in the "jakarta-tomcat-4.1" CVS repository as file
> "catalina/docs/filters.html".  The comparison was primarily to the way that
> request interceptors were implemented in Tomcat 3.2, so I would suspect that
> there have been some changes since on the HEAD branch -- particularly in the
> last section, where I discuss limitations that are due to the *implementation*
> of request interceptors in Tomcat 3.2, not their *design*.  (The Valve APIs have
> not needed to be changed -- they have proven to be entirely sufficient to
> implement the servlet 2.3 spec's functionality requirements :-).
> 
> Aside from downloading the 4.1 source repository, this document will also be
> visible though the online CVS web access.  Sorry, I'm offline at the moment, so
> I cannot give you a hyperlink, but select the CVSWeb link, module
> "jakarta-tomcat-4.1", directory "catalina", directory "docs", directory "dev",
> and file "filters.html".

Just in case anyone else is interested:

http://jakarta.apache.org/cvsweb/index.cgi/jakarta-tomcat-4.1/catalina/docs/filters.html

> 
> >
> > What I intend to compare is the typical method call sequence
> > of the two approaches, including resource allocation if any, when
> > handling various types requests.  From there I hope to point to the
> > relative merits and tradeoffs of each approach.
> >
> > I have fun with this kind of stuff... it harkens back to
> > my old graphics programming days.  It's almost always surprising
> > what this stuff will turn up.
> >
> > -Paul Speed
> >
> 
> I had a Comp Sci prof that made an interesting point -- you only write one real
> program in your life, and then you spend the rest of your career plagarizing
> from it :-)

Ain't it the truth.  One thing that was always fun about graphics 
programming was that quite often the algorithm that looked least 
optimal performed the best.  Figuring out why is sometimes it's own 
game.

Thanks for the pointer to the doc... it should get me started.
-Paul Speed

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Larry Isaacs]

Hans Bergsten wrote:

> The way I feel right now is that the best way to answer
> this question is by a vote on this list, where all +1
> votes for TC 3.3 also means a commitment to help fix bugs
> in TC 3.3.

+1

Cheers,
Larry

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Ignacio J. Ortega]

Hola a todos:

> >Hans Bergsten wrote:
> >
> >> The way I feel right now is that the best way to answer
> >> this question is by a vote on this list, where all +1
> >> votes for TC 3.3 also means a commitment to help fix bugs
> >> in TC 3.3.
> >
> 
> +1 .  
> 

+1

Saludos ,
Ignacio J. Ortega


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info - What happens if a 3.3 proposal getsa -1

[Hans Bergsten]

Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> Hans Bersten wrote:
> >
> > Unless another committer can convince whoever votes
> > -1 to change his vote, it means that 3.3 will not
> > happen. Instead we will continue to maintain the
> > 3.x code base based on 3.2.1. That's how decision
> > making is defined for this project, see
> >
> > 
> 
> That may be how it is defined, but we need to find a way to make it work.
> 
> Two conflicting goals: the burden of proof needs to be on the one proposing
> to change the status quo, and we can't permit -1's that simply are raised
> to prohibit forward progress.

Right, we need to talk about this (and a few other things in our
bylaws and guidelines) at the meeting today.

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: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Craig R. McClanahan]

"Rob S." wrote:

> > Another alternative could be as, I proposed some time ago, to
> > rename Tomcat 3.3 to AnotherName 3.3 ie Bobcat or Finecat 3.3 ;-)
>
> Robcat!
>
> - r
>
> p.s. my brother's name is tom.
>

Sounds as rational as the thinking at most of the product naming/branding
meetings I've ever attended :-).

Craig



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]

[Craig R. McClanahan]

Paul Speed wrote:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Can you argue about how Valve's single chain of command ( where
> > authentication, generation, etc are done in a single invoke() ) can
> > be better than what all other server are doing ( and Apache 2.0
> > moves to a different level with the flexible HOOK mechanism ?
> >
>
> Actually, this is a discussion I would like to see happen.  I
> think that I can actually argue for Valves.  Admittedly, I know little
> about the actual implementations but I am very familiar with the
> patterns used in Tomcat 3.x and Tomcat 4.x and I have seen much of the
> discussions on this list.  However, in other projects I have converted
> several architectures using patterns similar to 3.x to be more like the
> Valve approach.  We did it to shorten development times and improve
> developer productivity.  Performance wasn't our main goal but in all
> but one case performance improved.
>

Valves implement the "Chain of Responsibility" design pattern in the GoF book.
You will also see a very similar programming model in the way that the
javax.servlet.Filter APIs are defined in the Servlet Specification, Version 2.3
Proposed Final Draft -- after wrestling with lots of alternatives, the expert
group concluded that this was the most appropriate programming model for
exposing similar functionality at the application level.

>
> What I would like to see is a frank analysis of this topic.
> If those "in the know" do not have the time then I will attempt to
> do a brief analysis myself in the coming weeks.  It will take research
> on my part whereas some of you might know the answers off the top of
> your head.
>

I did an analysis on this topic in August, when Catalina was being formally
proposed -- it is still in the "jakarta-tomcat-4.1" CVS repository as file
"catalina/docs/filters.html".  The comparison was primarily to the way that
request interceptors were implemented in Tomcat 3.2, so I would suspect that
there have been some changes since on the HEAD branch -- particularly in the
last section, where I discuss limitations that are due to the *implementation*
of request interceptors in Tomcat 3.2, not their *design*.  (The Valve APIs have
not needed to be changed -- they have proven to be entirely sufficient to
implement the servlet 2.3 spec's functionality requirements :-).

Aside from downloading the 4.1 source repository, this document will also be
visible though the online CVS web access.  Sorry, I'm offline at the moment, so
I cannot give you a hyperlink, but select the CVSWeb link, module
"jakarta-tomcat-4.1", directory "catalina", directory "docs", directory "dev",
and file "filters.html".

>
> What I intend to compare is the typical method call sequence
> of the two approaches, including resource allocation if any, when
> handling various types requests.  From there I hope to point to the
> relative merits and tradeoffs of each approach.
>
> I have fun with this kind of stuff... it harkens back to
> my old graphics programming days.  It's almost always surprising
> what this stuff will turn up.
>
> -Paul Speed
>

I had a Comp Sci prof that made an interesting point -- you only write one real
program in your life, and then you spend the rest of your career plagarizing
from it :-)

Craig

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Rob S.]

> Another alternative could be as, I proposed some time ago, to
> rename Tomcat 3.3 to AnotherName 3.3 ie Bobcat or Finecat 3.3 ;-)

Robcat!

- r

p.s. my brother's name is tom.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info - Is more than just 3.x vs 4.x

[Paulo Gaspar]

BTW, you know the Giant Java Tree project, don't you?


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar

> -Original Message-
> From: GOMEZ Henri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 13:42
> 
> I'm a +1000 to see someone like CJAN (CPAN for java) came to life.
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]

[Jon Stevens]

Anil. That was a question, not a stated comment about his mother. It was
said in such a way as to show that if I had commented about his mother, it
would be as low as telling someone to shut up.

-jon

on 1/16/01 12:46 AM, "Anil Vijendran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Jon Stevens wrote:
> 
>> on 1/15/01 9:51 PM, "Anil Vijendran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Talking about someone's mother is just not kosher.
>> 
>> I didn't talk about his mother. I'm simply showing the immaturity and
>> rudeness of telling someone to shut up.
> 
> What do you mean by "I didn't talk"?? See the following snippet posted by
> yourself: (Let me know if you want me to forward the exact mail...) For all
> the talk you do about read what I wrote carefully you should remember what
> *you* write.
> 
> 
 I can't get you and Costin to understand what I'm saying, however, you
 understand Hans even though he said nearly the same thing that I have been
 saying all along.
>>> 
>>> Than maybe it would be a good idea to shut up and let Hans do the talking?
>> 
>> How should I respond to this, with a comment about your mother or something?
>> 
>> -jon
>> 
> --
> Peace, Anil +<:-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

-- 
Honk if you love peace and quiet.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info - Is more than just 3.x vs 4.x

[GOMEZ Henri]

Don't forget about that :

PRE-MEETING FESTIVITIES:

Before the meeting, Jon Stevens and I welcome you to come to
CollabNet and discuss ideas for a CJAN implementation for
managing Java JAR libraries. I'm sure that we'd also like to
talk about Sam's tinderbox ideas as these ideas are related.
Details on this to follow.

I'm a +1000 to see someone like CJAN (CPAN for java) came to life.

One of my goal in RPM packaging majors projects in jakarta and xml
is to help RPM users (Not only Linux) have an easy access and installation 
to help them do a more effective java programming. 

Dependencies, Obsoleting and packaging concept of RPM help do that.
Hope to read decision of CJAN.

Some questions :

* Did the jars must be installed in :

/usr/share/java/(Debian recommandation)
/usr/lib/java/  (à la perl)

* Must we keep major versions in naming ie :

/usr/share/java/jakarta-regexp-1.1.jar 
/usr/share/java/jakarta-regexp-1.2.jar 
/usr/share/java/jakarta-regexp.jar -> /usr/share/java/jakarta-regexp-1.2.jar

* What's the exact naming of jars :

/usr/share/java/jakarta-regexp.jar 
or 
/usr/share/java/regexp.jar 

Thanks for comments



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]

[Paulo Gaspar]

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 06:05
>
> on 1/15/01 9:03 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The reasons why there are advantages for (at least) the next year or so
> > on having both 3.3 and 4.x were already stated so often today...
>
> 3.3 will get released. That isn't the question.

GREAT! I was getting "confused" about that.


> > ...and also how 3.3 commiters are scratching an itch and will not focus
> > on 4.x while the itch is there...
>
> Not true at all. Costin has said that he will not work on 4.x. Again, my
> point being that perhaps it would be smarter to encourage people
> to work on
> improving 4.x more quickly instead of having this fork of developer
> resources working on 3.x.

Some of us have production sites _now_. It is smarter for us to do whatever
keeps/gets those sites running ASAP.

Scratching the itch, remember?


> If Costin and everyone else had put all of their energy on
> working on 4.x in
> the first place, we wouldn't be in the same situation we are in today and
> people would have been more willing to migrate from 3.0/3.1 to 4.x because
> the improvement would have been more clear. Instead, now we are
> stuck in the
> position of having to give people 3.2 and potentially 3.3 because people
> have invested a lot into building on top of it. Where does it stop?

"If" here means "maybe". Can anyone be sure that 4.0 would be production
ready now?

I am sure that all that people can still be motivated to migrate to 4.x
_when_ it is ready for production if it has real advantages - and I am not
doubting it may have.

Just because you want it now, it does not mean that you can drag people
with different needs. The reason 3.3 is there is just because there are
several committers with those different needs.

So, I guess "it stops" when 4.0 is able to satisfy those different needs
too.


Paulo


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[GOMEZ Henri]

>Hans Bergsten wrote:
>
>> The way I feel right now is that the best way to answer
>> this question is by a vote on this list, where all +1
>> votes for TC 3.3 also means a commitment to help fix bugs
>> in TC 3.3.
>

+1 .  

I'd like to see a beta release of 3.3. We could see and compare
after. Don't forget that the majority of commiters on 3.3 only
works on 3.x. It will not take away resources from TC 4.0

Another alternative could be as, I proposed some time ago, to
rename Tomcat 3.3 to AnotherName 3.3 ie Bobcat or Finecat 3.3 ;-)

Excellence came from openness.Even if code base may diverge from 3.3 
and 4.0, it will certainly help somewhere to build a common framework for 
inclusion of module in both 3.3 and 4.0.

And that may be the framework of TC 5.0. Why not thinking about a plugable
Tomcat engine which could made of TC 3.3 core or TC 4.0 core.




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

I am terribly sorry Sam. It was Larry.

Sorry again,
Paulo

> -Original Message-
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 08:46
>
>
> Paulo Gaspar wrote:
> >
> > Sam and others already stated that 3.3 is easier to maintain.
> > They did take a look at the code.
>
> Not me.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>


> -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.
>
> ...
>
> Cheers,
> Larry
>


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]

[Anil Vijendran]

Jon Stevens wrote:

> on 1/15/01 9:51 PM, "Anil Vijendran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Talking about someone's mother is just not kosher.
>
> I didn't talk about his mother. I'm simply showing the immaturity and
> rudeness of telling someone to shut up.

What do you mean by "I didn't talk"?? See the following snippet posted by
yourself: (Let me know if you want me to forward the exact mail...) For all
the talk you do about read what I wrote carefully you should remember what
*you* write.


> >> I can't get you and Costin to understand what I'm saying, however, you
> >> understand Hans even though he said nearly the same thing that I have been
> >> saying all along.
> >
> > Than maybe it would be a good idea to shut up and let Hans do the talking?
>
> How should I respond to this, with a comment about your mother or something?
>
> -jon
>
--
Peace, Anil +<:-)




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Sam Ruby]

Hans Bergsten wrote:
>
> Great. As have been said a few times, you can do
> that as a revolution using a different name than
> Tomcat within the Jakarta project.

+1.

- Sam Ruby


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info - What happens if a 3.3 proposal getsa -1

[Sam Ruby]

Hans Bersten wrote:
>
> Unless another committer can convince whoever votes
> -1 to change his vote, it means that 3.3 will not
> happen. Instead we will continue to maintain the
> 3.x code base based on 3.2.1. That's how decision
> making is defined for this project, see
>
> 

That may be how it is defined, but we need to find a way to make it work.

Two conflicting goals: the burden of proof needs to be on the one proposing
to change the status quo, and we can't permit -1's that simply are raised
to prohibit forward progress.

- Sam Ruby


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Sam Ruby]

Hans Bergsten wrote:

> The way I feel right now is that the best way to answer
> this question is by a vote on this list, where all +1
> votes for TC 3.3 also means a commitment to help fix bugs
> in TC 3.3.

+1 .  That's the right  body (the committers of Tomcat) to make this
decision, IMHO.

- Sam Ruby


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Sam Ruby]

Jon Stevens wrote:
>
> Costin, this has been like you since I have known you. You
> are an excellent developer in that you can work on your own,
> but when it comes to working within a project or group of
> people where you need to ask the opinions of others and then
> take those seriously, I haven't seen you doing that at all.

That was not my experience when I worked by Costin's side on 3.1.

> Before Sam points it out, I will state that I am also guilty
> of doing the same thing. However, I am trying to work on
> fixing that (admitted) portion of my personality defect.
> What are you doing about it?

On the contrary, I believe that there are projects and groups who owe their
very existence to your work.

- Sam Ruby


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Sam Ruby]

Paulo Gaspar wrote:
>
> Sam and others already stated that 3.3 is easier to maintain.
> They did take a look at the code.

Not me.

- Sam Ruby


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Stop! Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 11:17 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'll just set a filter - and I advise you do the same. I'm going to ignore
> any posting Jon does, and I'll avoid any project where he's involved.

Again. More censorship.

-jon


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 9:51 PM, "Anil Vijendran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Talking about someone's mother is just not kosher.

I didn't talk about his mother. I'm simply showing the immaturity and
rudeness of telling someone to shut up.

-jon


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Stop! Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]

[cmanolache]

I guess I owe some apologies to this group for getting into this. I tried
as much as possible to ignore Jon, but it seems I was too weak for that.

I'll just set a filter - and I advise you do the same. I'm going to ignore
any posting Jon does, and I'll avoid any project where he's involved. 

Please do the same - it's not worth it. 

I'll follow the advices I received so far and I'll go to the
meeting, even if it's the last place I would want to be. 

I understand flames happen in open source lists, but there is a limit that
shouldn't be crossed. 


--
Costin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Rajiv Mordani]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Jon Stevens wrote:

> on 1/15/01 7:39 PM, "Rajiv Mordani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Jon Stevens wrote:
> > 
> >> on 1/15/01 3:09 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Of course, what you don't like is either "not proposed or agreed" or "not
> >>> justified " ( the -1 votes against you ) or "not agreed by the PMC".
> >>> 
> >>> And what you want is "what the community want".
> >>> 
> >>> -- 
> >>> Costin
> >>> 
> >>> P.S. - ops, it seems you got me again - into answering. Sorry.
> >> 
> >> Costin, this has been like you since I have known you. You are an excellent
> >> developer in that you can work on your own, but when it comes to working
> >> within a project or group of people where you need to ask the opinions of
> >> others and then take those seriously, I haven't seen you doing that at all.
> > 
> > Maybe you should talk to Scott Boag et al from xalan dev team what they
> > think about how Costin works in a project before making such comments on a
> > public mailing list
> 
> Funny, I haven't seen a single posting from Costin on the Xalan-Dev mailing
> list since I joined in late November.

He has posted patches to Scott and that's exactly why I mentioned Scott's
name.. (I would cc him but since he is travelling this week and may not be
able to access email that frequently. I wouldn't want him to be flooded
with these mails).  Also maybe you should look for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and not [EMAIL PROTECTED] They are 2
different people as you have pointed out later in the mail..

Going through the archives I see the following 

This one is early Nov so maybe you couldv'e missed it 

http://archive.covalent.net/xml/xalan-dev/2000/11/0352.xml

However this is in Dec so either you aren't reading xalan-dev carefully or
you chose to ignore it.. 

http://archive.covalent.net/xml/xalan-dev/2000/12/0193.xml

> 
> I also wouldn't categorize the Xalan project as a model project. Sure, it is
> developed well, but I haven't see much of the discussion going on with
> regards to following standard ASF project guidelines such simple things like
> as asking for a vote before doing a release. All I see is Paul Dick@Lotus
> doing announcements about releases. Where is the discussion happening?

In that case maybe as an asf member and a member of the board you should
help them understand the "ASF project guidelines".. But that's a whole
other discussion that we can have some other time..

> 
> > Also Costin is the only one on 3.x tree from Sun. All the others are from
> > outside Sun. Just goes to show how WELL he works with a group of people
> > that aren't even geographically co-located..
> 
> Actually, Costin is supposed to be outside of Sun with regards to Tomcat.

Thanks for correcting me on this...

> 
> > As for the way the PMC works - I have had this discussion with James on
> > more than one occasion - the pmc incase of xml and jakarta unlike the
> > httpd project comprises of people who aren't the core developers... People
> > who aren't working on the project get to make the decisions.  From what I
> > have heard the httpd on the other hand has the core developers as part of
> > the pmc. That is the way it should be  Maybe this should also be an
> > issue that needs to be discussed in tomorrow's meeting
> 
> Tomorrows meeting does not cover the XML project, so bringing XML related
> stuff up here is moot.

Maybe you should read the mail carefully before being in a hurry to reply
to the mail... I have mentioned "xml AND jakarta pmc".. I think one of the
2 mentioned projects is meeting tomorrow?? Or atleast that's the
discussion that's happening here... Isn't it?? 

> 
> However, lets look at PMC reality since you obviously aren't:
> 
> Anil and Craig and James and Pier are all members of the Jakarta PMC and
> have commit access on the Tomcat project. That is also four votes from Sun
> alone. Remember, it only takes 3 votes to pass a proposal.
> 
> In fact, I would argue that the Jakarta PMC is heavily biased towards Sun
> with 4 of the 7 people working for Sun including the PMC president.

The point isn't even about having Sun people. I am just saying that it
should consist of "core developers".. Jon you should read mails
carefully... If you really think that there is a community around tomcat
then you would never bring up the issue of being Sun biased etc...  What's
your point here in ranting about Sun and it's employees??

> 
> 
> 
> Given the fact that Sun also seems to control what people do and say on this
> mailing list, I think the *real* issue here very clear.
> 
> At this point, I have lost confidence that the votes that Sun employees give
> on this list are actual representations of what the person giving those
> votes really believes in.
> 
> Scared yet?

Of what??

- Rajiv

> 
> >> You think that by fixing Tomcat 3.x to be re-factored code is a good thing.
> >> I agree. Ho

Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]

[Anil Vijendran]

Jon Stevens wrote:

> on 1/15/01 7:18 PM, "Anil Vijendran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What the f*ck is it, really?!
>
> The two points I have brought up are:
>
> #1. that Costin didn't make a vote in the ASF because his boss @ Sun didn't
> let him.
> #2. that his employer also tried to pull him off the project by giving him
> something else to do (which seems to have badly backfired).

Irrelevant nonsense! Costin didn't vote, that's relevant.  Asking him why (beyond
the direct relevance to Tomcat 3.x or 4.0) and sitting around surmising why he
might not have voted or that his employer didn't let him do something or the other
on public mailing lists is slander.

> "What the fuck is it"; is that much of what goes on behind Sun's closed
> doors is a hell of a lot more closed and affective to this project than what
> we (including yourself) discuss on the PMC list.

Useless and irrelevant rants about Sun etc. Typical of your emails.

> I'm sorry that you couldn't read through the cracks well enough. I hope that
> spells it out more clearly for you.

Spells what?!

> > What sort of community are you trying to build out here?
>
> I really don't understand how you all put up with Costin's FUD and rants
> against Tomcat 4.0 forever now without saying anything and when I speak up
> against continuing Tomcat 3.x indefinitely, suddenly I'm the asshole.

I know you bring up a few valid points. Please stick to it and be sober in your
tone. Talking about someone's mother is just not kosher.

> > Seeing all of this, I don't think I'd be too much off my mark if I suggested
> > that Jon's indiscipline on the mailing lists be discussed at some level or the
> > other. The rest of Apache and this PMC keeping quiet on these sorts of
> > behaviours is only going to exacerbate the notion of the PMC being a clique.
>
> Are you saying that you are pro-censorship? That people are not allowed to
> express their views however they want? I worry for you as well as the PMC.

Gee thanks for worrying about me. After all those insults that you so gratuitously
heap on people, you ought to worry about yourself and go enroll in Manners 101.

When will you ever get a clue?! I'm not talking about censorship here.

I'm talking about how in the future *I* (and others who might not belong to your
clique, or company) can avoid being called names or insulted in some other way by
*you* because we didn't fall in line with your opinions.

> -jon

--
Peace, Anil +<:-)




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]

[Hans Bergsten]

Paul Speed wrote:
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Can you argue about how Valve's single chain of command ( where
> > authentication, generation, etc are done in a single invoke() ) can
> > be better than what all other server are doing ( and Apache 2.0
> > moves to a different level with the flexible HOOK mechanism ?
> >
> 
> Actually, this is a discussion I would like to see happen.  I
> think that I can actually argue for Valves.  Admittedly, I know little
> about the actual implementations but I am very familiar with the
> patterns used in Tomcat 3.x and Tomcat 4.x and I have seen much of the
> discussions on this list.  However, in other projects I have converted
> several architectures using patterns similar to 3.x to be more like the
> Valve approach.  We did it to shorten development times and improve
> developer productivity.  Performance wasn't our main goal but in all
> but one case performance improved.
> 
> What I would like to see is a frank analysis of this topic.
> If those "in the know" do not have the time then I will attempt to
> do a brief analysis myself in the coming weeks.  It will take research
> on my part whereas some of you might know the answers off the top of
> your head.
> 
> What I intend to compare is the typical method call sequence
> of the two approaches, including resource allocation if any, when
> handling various types requests.  From there I hope to point to the
> relative merits and tradeoffs of each approach.
> 
> I have fun with this kind of stuff... it harkens back to
> my old graphics programming days.  It's almost always surprising
> what this stuff will turn up.

You may want to take a look at this:

 


It's a comparison of the Valve and Interceptor model, written by
Craig some time ago. For some reason it was deleted from the
repository 2 days ago, with the comment "Remove obsolete file",
but I believe it's still valid at least as an overview.

Craig, why did you remove it?

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: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 9:03 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The reasons why there are advantages for (at least) the next year or so
> on having both 3.3 and 4.x were already stated so often today...

3.3 will get released. That isn't the question.

> ...and also how 3.3 commiters are scratching an itch and will not focus
> on 4.x while the itch is there...

Not true at all. Costin has said that he will not work on 4.x. Again, my
point being that perhaps it would be smarter to encourage people to work on
improving 4.x more quickly instead of having this fork of developer
resources working on 3.x.

If Costin and everyone else had put all of their energy on working on 4.x in
the first place, we wouldn't be in the same situation we are in today and
people would have been more willing to migrate from 3.0/3.1 to 4.x because
the improvement would have been more clear. Instead, now we are stuck in the
position of having to give people 3.2 and potentially 3.3 because people
have invested a lot into building on top of it. Where does it stop?

> And this Sun fixation? Craig doesn't seem to have a problem with Sun,
> does he?

I don't know.

-jon


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]

[Paul Speed]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> Can you argue about how Valve's single chain of command ( where
> authentication, generation, etc are done in a single invoke() ) can 
> be better than what all other server are doing ( and Apache 2.0 
> moves to a different level with the flexible HOOK mechanism ?
> 

Actually, this is a discussion I would like to see happen.  I
think that I can actually argue for Valves.  Admittedly, I know little
about the actual implementations but I am very familiar with the
patterns used in Tomcat 3.x and Tomcat 4.x and I have seen much of the
discussions on this list.  However, in other projects I have converted 
several architectures using patterns similar to 3.x to be more like the 
Valve approach.  We did it to shorten development times and improve 
developer productivity.  Performance wasn't our main goal but in all 
but one case performance improved.

What I would like to see is a frank analysis of this topic.
If those "in the know" do not have the time then I will attempt to
do a brief analysis myself in the coming weeks.  It will take research
on my part whereas some of you might know the answers off the top of
your head.

What I intend to compare is the typical method call sequence
of the two approaches, including resource allocation if any, when 
handling various types requests.  From there I hope to point to the 
relative merits and tradeoffs of each approach.

I have fun with this kind of stuff... it harkens back to
my old graphics programming days.  It's almost always surprising
what this stuff will turn up.

-Paul Speed

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]

[Paulo Gaspar]

The reasons why there are advantages for (at least) the next year or so
on having both 3.3 and 4.x were already stated so often today...

...and also how 3.3 commiters are scratching an itch and will not focus
on 4.x while the itch is there...


How is your short term memory doing?
What is your interest on Tomcat besides history?

And this Sun fixation? Craig doesn't seem to have a problem with Sun,
does he?


Have fun,
Paulo


> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 05:40
>
> ...
>
> Your comments above again restate the need to fork Tomcat 3.x out
> of Jakarta
> in order to allow the developers to focus on creating the best *single*
> container out there instead of being constantly belittled by your comments
> about how our future product has faults and having you fix those things in
> the older version instead of the version that everyone agreed
> upon as being
> the future.
>
> Does that make any sort of sense to you?
>
> -jon


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[cmanolache]

> > About why - it's simple, because 2.3 is the next version and to have a
> > future we must keep up to date.
> 
> "We" here means you and those who follow you to sourceforge (or
> wherever),  I assume?

We means people who use tomcat 3.x or contribute to 3.x - it's not an EOL
product. 

I'm not encouraging or asking anyone to "follow" me - what I'm trying to
do is get people to think for themself and develop modules 
- if they can get them into apache, that would be great, and I would be
happy to have my modules picked up into the main site and apache.

But developing features and exploring new ideas should be as simple as
possible - and shouldn't require interaction with Jon or alike.

In other words - the goal is to have people turning their ideas
into code and create modules for 3.3. 

If anyone will choose to help me or will need my help for their modules
and enhancements - I'll be more than happy. But modules are small things
that can be developed and maintained by people who need them, not
fork-like projects.

> > In any case - I discussed about facade23 just to make clear that I
> > indeed plan to stick around doing 3.x-related stuff ( besides bug fixes ),
> > and to make clear that tomcat 3.x core has a future and will be useful for
> > more people, even post servlet 2.2.
> 
> This is an example of what I see as creating confusion. You say above
> that you will take the code outside Jakarta to implement 2.3 etc. And
> then you say here that you will "stick around doing 3.x-related stuff 
> (besides bug fixes)." I'm sorry, but you lost me again. If you will go
> ...

Modules. Think about mod_perl or mod_php. Or integration of tomcat into
other programs, or special high-performance or availability modules. 

Same model that has been used for Apache.

> jakarta-tomcat repository (often referred to as 3.3-dev), but if this
> code  also gets released as Tomcat 3.3, I'm sure your external code 
> base and the Jakarta code-base will diverge over time.

The same that worked for apache will hopefully work for 3.3 - again, I
don't want to "fork" ( and check in a copy of tomcat source in a different
repository ). Tomcat 3.3 is the basis, and the modules will have to adapt
to eventual enhancements that will be made on jakarta-tomcat.

I also hope other people will start to develop their individual modules (
and I'm sure that will happen - and it already happens for 3.2 ). That
will give an extra reason for keeping the core backward compatible.

> Or do you mean that you will continue to contribute to the TC 3.x core
> within Jakarta, and only develop the modules externally (under a
> different name)? Sorry if I'm being dense, but I think it's important
> to understand  exactly what you have in mind.

That's exactly what I'm trying - and I'm sorry if I can't explain my
thoughts any better. And thank you very much for helping me clarify
things.

-- 
Costin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 8:10 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Can you argue about how Valve's single chain of command ( where
> authentication, generation, etc are done in a single invoke() ) can be
> better than what all other server are doing ( and Apache 2.0 moves to a
> different level with the flexible HOOK mechanism ?
> 
> Can you argue about the design of Catalina - and point to the point where
> we discussed _any_ of the requirements and design choices ?
>
> Can you argue about the ammount of public discussion during the 4.0 ?
> 
> Or about the number of interfaces needed to do anything ?
> 
> ( or has been any of this discussed and decided ? )
> 
> Which is the FUD ?

Maybe instead of focusing all your effort on a code base that we agreed on
was not the future of Tomcat, you could have instead been suggesting /
implementing changes and improvements to Tomcat 4.0 to fix the issues that
you saw.

Craig is going down a development path. If you didn't like it, you should
have spoken up. Did you? No, instead you choose to go an entirely different
path and now you are being called on it (much to your annoyance).

Your comments above again restate the need to fork Tomcat 3.x out of Jakarta
in order to allow the developers to focus on creating the best *single*
container out there instead of being constantly belittled by your comments
about how our future product has faults and having you fix those things in
the older version instead of the version that everyone agreed upon as being
the future.

Does that make any sort of sense to you?

-jon



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Hans Bergsten]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > Yes, but you seem to create a lot of confusion about how and where
> > you will implement support for the new APIs eventually. That, I
> > believe, is one of the main reasons we have the current situation.
> > You said back in November that you where going to start a revolution
> > for the 2.3 stuff, as well as other features. But it never happened
> > and I see hints from you about adding support for the new APIs in 3.3
> > popping up now and then, without a clear indication about when and
> > where.
> 
> Then let me clarify, to avoid the confusion - I don't know yet where (
> probably sourceforge or from a homepage ), and I have few ideas about
> "how". I said back in November that I am going to start a revolution with
> the 2.3 stuff and other features - and I didn't do it because finishing
> 3.3 refactoring and merging the fixes from 3.2 should happen first, and
> it's much higher priority.

Okay.

> Since November I learned a few lessons, so I'll not do a revolution - I
> don't think that will give me enough freedom ( and I'll still be at the
> mercy of the PMC ). So it'll be outside apache ( consistent with what I
> said about minimizing my involvment with apache projects ).

Okay.

> About why - it's simple, because 2.3 is the next version and to have a
> future we must keep up to date.

"We" here means you and those who follow you to sourceforge (or
wherever),
I assume?

> [...]

> > Well, within the same project it creates a lot of confusion if we
> > have more than one container the same API level. Besides, the Servlet
> > 2.3
> > and JSP 1.2 APIs are backwards compatible, so Tomcat 4.0 by definition
> > supports 2.2/1.1 as well.
> 
> And that's not confusing :-)

No. It's the effect of the specifications being backwards compatible,
which is pretty common with specifications; the later version still
supports applications written to the previous version.

> In any case - I discussed about facade23 just to make clear that I
> indeed plan to stick around doing 3.x-related stuff ( besides bug fixes ),
> and to make clear that tomcat 3.x core has a future and will be useful for
> more people, even post servlet 2.2.

This is an example of what I see as creating confusion. You say above
that you will take the code outside Jakarta to implement 2.3 etc. And
then you say here that you will "stick around doing 3.x-related stuff 
(besides bug fixes)." I'm sorry, but you lost me again. If you will go
outside Jakarta to continue, it will not be Tomcat 3.3 that "has a
future"
since it will have to be named something else (the Tomcat name is owned
by 
ASF). You may start out with the code that today is the HEAD of the 
jakarta-tomcat repository (often referred to as 3.3-dev), but if this
code 
also gets released as Tomcat 3.3, I'm sure your external code base and 
the Jakarta code-base will diverge over time.

Or do you mean that you will continue to contribute to the TC 3.x core
within Jakarta, and only develop the modules externally (under a
different
name)? Sorry if I'm being dense, but I think it's important to
understand
exactly what you have in mind.

> [...]

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: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 8:21 PM, "Jon Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I still agree with that. In fact, the feature requests that have come
> through today by the users even stated that they would only be using it by
> connecting to Tomcat.

s/Tomcat/Apache/

sorry...long day of typing...

-jon

-- 
Honk if you love peace and quiet.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 8:16 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> The history is what is important here. The fact of the matter is that if Sun
>> had not donated Tomcat 3.x, we would already be using a much more complete
>> Catalina as Craig had already started work on it and was pulled off from
> 
> Well, check the jserv archives and let us know how many people contributed
> to Jserv2.0 ? Or look at the jserv history - and count the contributions
> other than Craig's.

Right, that is because the history also shows that JServ 2.0 was a
revolution and that the rest of us were still working on JServ 1.x. However,
if you also read the archives, you will see that everyone supported what
Craig was working on and that we would have moved to it.

The point being that when Sun came along with Tomcat, we waited and waited
and waited (10 months) for it to be given to us. Craig halted development on
what he was doing anticipating the Tomcat 3.x codebase to be at least
halfway decent. Then he looked at it and found it to be...umm...lacking. I
remember how pissed off he was that he hadn't just gone and done his own
work. I was pretty pissed as well as we could have been way ahead of Tomcat
3.x if we hadn't had sat on our asses listening to Sun's promises...

Thank god for JavaOne. That seems to be the only way to get Sun to actually
commit to anything (as also evidenced by the XML Project creation).

> Or check the long debates where you and Craig were arguing about how
> "standalone " is better and embeded containers don't matter.

I still agree with that. In fact, the feature requests that have come
through today by the users even stated that they would only be using it by
connecting to Tomcat. So, what is your point here?

>> working on it in order to support 3.x development. The fact that Catalina is
>> as far along as it is today is a testament to how amazing Craig is with
>> regards to the amount of really quality code he can write.
> 
> Yes, but as you pointed out working in a community and with other's code
> is more important.

Right. You refused to do that. Instead you felt that you would go your own
route with Tomcat 3.x even though the direction of the project was voted to
go with 4.x. Oh wait, I repeated that (again)...

-jon


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[cmanolache]

> The history is what is important here. The fact of the matter is that if Sun
> had not donated Tomcat 3.x, we would already be using a much more complete
> Catalina as Craig had already started work on it and was pulled off from

Well, check the jserv archives and let us know how many people contributed
to Jserv2.0 ? Or look at the jserv history - and count the contributions
other than Craig's. 

Or check the long debates where you and Craig were arguing about how
"standalone " is better and embeded containers don't matter. 

> working on it in order to support 3.x development. The fact that Catalina is
> as far along as it is today is a testament to how amazing Craig is with
> regards to the amount of really quality code he can write.

Yes, but as you pointed out working in a community and with other's code
is more important.

-- 
Costin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]

[cmanolache]

> The two points I have brought up are:
> 
> #1. that Costin didn't make a vote in the ASF because his boss @ Sun didn't
> let him.

It's actually Craig that complained to my boss. The rules were that we are
free to work on anything we want in our free time, and that we can
freely express our opinions. At least until Craig started to turn things
into something else.

> #2. that his employer also tried to pull him off the project by giving him
> something else to do (which seems to have badly backfired).

Not quite - the first thing Craig did was to set the rules to "work on
Catalina or go" ( plus some other nice rules I prefer to not remember). I
choosed to go - and I'm very gratefull to my managers for making it quick
and easy. And to be honest I moved to a great project.

Yes, I lost the "be paid to do what you would do in your free time", and I
had double work to do - but it has been fun.

> "What the fuck is it"; is that much of what goes on behind Sun's closed
> doors is a hell of a lot more closed and affective to this project than what
> we (including yourself) discuss on the PMC list.

Guess what - I work on this project as an individual and everyone inside
Sun ( except Craig ) supported that.

In any case, the managers at Sun are way ahead of what this PMC seems to
be doing. Believe me, after the open source experience I've had on
tomcat-dev and the "corporate" experience I had at Sun - most of my
beliefs about open source are shaken. When I started I though open source
is the greatest thing. Now I understand that the people quality matter the
most.

( and BTW, I don't know how it is in your company, but I never worked in
any place where the managers had such a bad communication and secrecy with
their employee as in this open-source project ) 

> > What sort of community are you trying to build out here?
> 
> I really don't understand how you all put up with Costin's FUD and rants
> against Tomcat 4.0 forever now without saying anything and when I speak up
> against continuing Tomcat 3.x indefinitely, suddenly I'm the asshole.

FUD ? Rants ? Well Jon, pick any one - what are the issues where I believe
I'm wrong ?

Can you argue about how Valve's single chain of command ( where
authentication, generation, etc are done in a single invoke() ) can be
better than what all other server are doing ( and Apache 2.0 moves to a
different level with the flexible HOOK mechanism ?

Can you argue about the design of Catalina - and point to the point where
we discussed _any_ of the requirements and design choices ?

Can you argue about the ammount of public discussion during the 4.0 ? 

Or about the number of interfaces needed to do anything ?

( or has been any of this discussed and decided ? )

Which is the FUD ?

-- 
Costin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 7:39 PM, "Rajiv Mordani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Jon Stevens wrote:
> 
>> on 1/15/01 3:09 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Of course, what you don't like is either "not proposed or agreed" or "not
>>> justified " ( the -1 votes against you ) or "not agreed by the PMC".
>>> 
>>> And what you want is "what the community want".
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Costin
>>> 
>>> P.S. - ops, it seems you got me again - into answering. Sorry.
>> 
>> Costin, this has been like you since I have known you. You are an excellent
>> developer in that you can work on your own, but when it comes to working
>> within a project or group of people where you need to ask the opinions of
>> others and then take those seriously, I haven't seen you doing that at all.
> 
> Maybe you should talk to Scott Boag et al from xalan dev team what they
> think about how Costin works in a project before making such comments on a
> public mailing list

Funny, I haven't seen a single posting from Costin on the Xalan-Dev mailing
list since I joined in late November.

I also wouldn't categorize the Xalan project as a model project. Sure, it is
developed well, but I haven't see much of the discussion going on with
regards to following standard ASF project guidelines such simple things like
as asking for a vote before doing a release. All I see is Paul Dick@Lotus
doing announcements about releases. Where is the discussion happening?

> Also Costin is the only one on 3.x tree from Sun. All the others are from
> outside Sun. Just goes to show how WELL he works with a group of people
> that aren't even geographically co-located..

Actually, Costin is supposed to be outside of Sun with regards to Tomcat.

> As for the way the PMC works - I have had this discussion with James on
> more than one occasion - the pmc incase of xml and jakarta unlike the
> httpd project comprises of people who aren't the core developers... People
> who aren't working on the project get to make the decisions.  From what I
> have heard the httpd on the other hand has the core developers as part of
> the pmc. That is the way it should be  Maybe this should also be an
> issue that needs to be discussed in tomorrow's meeting

Tomorrows meeting does not cover the XML project, so bringing XML related
stuff up here is moot.

However, lets look at PMC reality since you obviously aren't:

Anil and Craig and James and Pier are all members of the Jakarta PMC and
have commit access on the Tomcat project. That is also four votes from Sun
alone. Remember, it only takes 3 votes to pass a proposal.

In fact, I would argue that the Jakarta PMC is heavily biased towards Sun
with 4 of the 7 people working for Sun including the PMC president.



Given the fact that Sun also seems to control what people do and say on this
mailing list, I think the *real* issue here very clear.

At this point, I have lost confidence that the votes that Sun employees give
on this list are actual representations of what the person giving those
votes really believes in.

Scared yet?

>> You think that by fixing Tomcat 3.x to be re-factored code is a good thing.
>> I agree. However, it doesn't fall in line with continuing the development
>> indefinitely because major changes mean the potential for major bugs and
>> further support issues as well as a split project's resources.
> 
> And a re-write doesn't bring most of these problems??

The history is what is important here. The fact of the matter is that if Sun
had not donated Tomcat 3.x, we would already be using a much more complete
Catalina as Craig had already started work on it and was pulled off from
working on it in order to support 3.x development. The fact that Catalina is
as far along as it is today is a testament to how amazing Craig is with
regards to the amount of really quality code he can write.

-jon

-- 
Honk if you love peace and quiet.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Rajiv Mordani]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Jon Stevens wrote:

> on 1/15/01 3:09 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Of course, what you don't like is either "not proposed or agreed" or "not
> > justified " ( the -1 votes against you ) or "not agreed by the PMC".
> > 
> > And what you want is "what the community want".
> > 
> > -- 
> > Costin
> > 
> > P.S. - ops, it seems you got me again - into answering. Sorry.
> 
> Costin, this has been like you since I have known you. You are an excellent
> developer in that you can work on your own, but when it comes to working
> within a project or group of people where you need to ask the opinions of
> others and then take those seriously, I haven't seen you doing that at all.

Maybe you should talk to Scott Boag et al from xalan dev team what they
think about how Costin works in a project before making such comments on a
public mailing list

Also Costin is the only one on 3.x tree from Sun. All the others are from
outside Sun. Just goes to show how WELL he works with a group of people
that aren't even geographically co-located..

As for the way the PMC works - I have had this discussion with James on
more than one occasion - the pmc incase of xml and jakarta unlike the
httpd project comprises of people who aren't the core developers... People
who aren't working on the project get to make the decisions.  From what I
have heard the httpd on the other hand has the core developers as part of
the pmc. That is the way it should be  Maybe this should also be an
issue that needs to be discussed in tomorrow's meeting 

- Rajiv

> 
> Before Sam points it out, I will state that I am also guilty of doing the
> same thing. However, I am trying to work on fixing that (admitted) portion
> of my personality defect. What are you doing about it?
> 
> You think that by fixing Tomcat 3.x to be re-factored code is a good thing.
> I agree. However, it doesn't fall in line with continuing the development
> indefinitely because major changes mean the potential for major bugs and
> further support issues as well as a split project's resources.

And a re-write doesn't bring most of these problems?? 

> 
> Again, where does it stop? Maybe if you had stated that you wanted to
> eventually switch to working on Tomcat 4.x, I would have had some sort of
> affirmation that you would eventually stop on Tomcat 3.x and start on Tomcat
> 4.x, but that has not occurred. In fact, quite the opposite. You have stated
> that you don't think Tomcat 4.x is any good and you also stated that you
> won't work on it. 
> 
> Given those variables, I feel that I need to step up and draw the line
> somewhere and ask people to vote on that decision. That is what is going to
> happen at the PMC meeting.
> 
> -jon
> 
> 
> -
> 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: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 7:18 PM, "Anil Vijendran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What the f*ck is it, really?!

The two points I have brought up are:

#1. that Costin didn't make a vote in the ASF because his boss @ Sun didn't
let him.
#2. that his employer also tried to pull him off the project by giving him
something else to do (which seems to have badly backfired).

"What the fuck is it"; is that much of what goes on behind Sun's closed
doors is a hell of a lot more closed and affective to this project than what
we (including yourself) discuss on the PMC list.

I'm sorry that you couldn't read through the cracks well enough. I hope that
spells it out more clearly for you.

> What sort of community are you trying to build out here?

I really don't understand how you all put up with Costin's FUD and rants
against Tomcat 4.0 forever now without saying anything and when I speak up
against continuing Tomcat 3.x indefinitely, suddenly I'm the asshole.

> Seeing all of this, I don't think I'd be too much off my mark if I suggested
> that Jon's indiscipline on the mailing lists be discussed at some level or the
> other. The rest of Apache and this PMC keeping quiet on these sorts of
> behaviours is only going to exacerbate the notion of the PMC being a clique.

Are you saying that you are pro-censorship? That people are not allowed to
express their views however they want? I worry for you as well as the PMC.

-jon


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[cmanolache]

> Yes, but you seem to create a lot of confusion about how and where
> you will implement support for the new APIs eventually. That, I
> believe, is one of the main reasons we have the current situation.
> You said back in November that you where going to start a revolution
> for the 2.3 stuff, as well as other features. But it never happened
> and I see hints from you about adding support for the new APIs in 3.3 
> popping up now and then, without a clear indication about when and
> where.

Then let me clarify, to avoid the confusion - I don't know yet where (
probably sourceforge or from a homepage ), and I have few ideas about
"how". I said back in November that I am going to start a revolution with
the 2.3 stuff and other features - and I didn't do it because finishing
3.3 refactoring and merging the fixes from 3.2 should happen first, and
it's much higher priority.

Since November I learned a few lessons, so I'll not do a revolution - I
don't think that will give me enough freedom ( and I'll still be at the
mercy of the PMC ). So it'll be outside apache ( consistent with what I
said about minimizing my involvment with apache projects ).

About why - it's simple, because 2.3 is the next version and to have a
future we must keep up to date. 

 
> Maybe. I'm not convinced that you can keep the same core for all
> versions of the specs (who knows what the 2.4, if it happens, will
> hold?), at least not without having to resort to pretty convoluted
> and ineffecient code. But that's besides the point right now.

Well, I'm hoping I'll be able to convince you. The idea is quite simple -
the core is modeled after abstractions found in web servers ( it's trying
to be close to a Java and OO representation of request_rec and all other
server structures - Container==dir_struct, etc). The theory is that as
long as the servlet API will be implementable on top of a web server,
the core will do the job and most modules will be reused without any
change. 

For 2.3 it's quite easy, and thanks to ClassLoaders it's also easy to have
both 2.2 and 2.3 ( and 2.0, 2.4 and any other facade ) running on the same
container ( and even instance ). While most people will not care about
that ( and they don't have to - there are just some modules and
configurations ), I think this will be important in quite a few cases and
it'll make a difference.

( of course, the facade has some other inherent advantages - mostly for
performance )


> Well, within the same project it creates a lot of confusion if we
> have more than one container the same API level. Besides, the Servlet
> 2.3
> and JSP 1.2 APIs are backwards compatible, so Tomcat 4.0 by definition
> supports 2.2/1.1 as well.

And that's not confusing :-)

In any case - I discussed about facade23 just to make clear that I
indeed plan to stick around doing 3.x-related stuff ( besides bug fixes ),
and to make clear that tomcat 3.x core has a future and will be useful for
more people, even post servlet 2.2.

> Great. As have been said a few times, you can do that as a revolution
> using a different name than Tomcat within the Jakarta project.

I don't think so - the overhead of the PMC and having to deal with people
like Jon is not worth it - and BTW, as Jon mentioned "revolutions" are
still not "aproved" by the PMC, and are a subject of debate. 

So I no longer think a revolution inside jakarta is the right solution.
( and the right to follow your ideas is _not_ a subject of debate - is
more of a fundamental right - if this is not welcomed in jakarta, too
bad for it )

-- 
Costin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]

[Anil Vijendran]

Jon Stevens wrote:

> on 1/15/01 5:58 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The lead developer for Tomcat has disappeared 1 year ago ( from any active
> > development or support in tomcat, he's still around doing other projects
> > ). That's BTW the best prove of a project viability.
>
> Right and you picked it up as your paid job until you were moved to another
> project within Sun. Since you have been so forward today, would you also
> like to expand on why you were switched over to an XML project internally?

You are supposed to be someone holding a position with some level of
responsibility or the other--PMC, member etc etc. Can't you restrain yourself to
things that are germane to this forum and stop acting like a precocious teen on
crack?!

By asking what you did here, what are you trying to get at? That you know a bit
more about what Costin's upto than the rest of the world? That you had bugs
planted in Sun that told you why someone was switched to some other project
internally? You want to wash someone else's linen in public? What the f*ck is
it, really?!


> >> I can't get you and Costin to understand what I'm saying, however, you
> >> understand Hans even though he said nearly the same thing that I have been
> >> saying all along.
> >
> > Than maybe it would be a good idea to shut up and let Hans do the talking?
>
> How should I respond to this, with a comment about your mother or something?

You might have been provoked allright but saying what you do here is nauseating.
What sort of community are you trying to build out here?

Seeing all of this, I don't think I'd be too much off my mark if I suggested
that Jon's indiscipline on the mailing lists be discussed at some level or the
other. The rest of Apache and this PMC keeping quiet on these sorts of
behaviours is only going to exacerbate the notion of the PMC being a clique.


--
Peace, Anil +<:-)




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

Yes, poor Jon!!!
I was the one that started and all hum?

Have fun,
Paulo

P.S.: It was just an interesting one day experiment: trying to be as
insisting as him and never quit (as he usualy doesn't). I can tell you
I will not repeat it very often - takes too much of my time.

> -Original Message-
> From: Rob S. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 03:39
>
>
> Paulo, cut the shit.  I'm 23 and I have the requisite maturity to
> not behave
> like this.  If you want to talk, talk, but enough attacking/provoking Jon.
>
> - r


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Rob S.]

Paulo, cut the shit.  I'm 23 and I have the requisite maturity to not behave
like this.  If you want to talk, talk, but enough attacking/provoking Jon.

- r


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

Since you usually agree with Hans and everybody else does too, maybe
he is just a much better communicator than you and maybe he is doing
a much better job.

So, why don't you just follow the very good advise?


Have fun,
Paulo

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 03:13
> 
> 
> > Than maybe it would be a good idea to shut up and let Hans do 
> the talking?
> 
> How should I respond to this, with a comment about your mother or 
> something?
> 
> -jon
> 
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info - What happens if a 3.3 proposal gets a -1

[Paulo Gaspar]

Thank you very much Hans.

Paulo

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hans
> Bergsten
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 03:05
> 
> 
> Paulo Gaspar wrote:
> > 
> > What happens if a 3.3 proposal gets a -1?
> 
[...very clear clarification...]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

Jon, It is the 2nd time I see you making this kind of remark and it stinks.

This kind of argumentation is quite dirty, even for you.


Paulo Gaspar

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 03:13
>
> on 1/15/01 5:58 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The lead developer for Tomcat has disappeared 1 year ago ( from
> any active
> > development or support in tomcat, he's still around doing other projects
> > ). That's BTW the best prove of a project viability.
>
> Right and you picked it up as your paid job until you were moved
> to another
> project within Sun. Since you have been so forward today, would you also
> like to expand on why you were switched over to an XML project internally?


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 5:58 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The lead developer for Tomcat has disappeared 1 year ago ( from any active
> development or support in tomcat, he's still around doing other projects
> ). That's BTW the best prove of a project viability.

Right and you picked it up as your paid job until you were moved to another
project within Sun. Since you have been so forward today, would you also
like to expand on why you were switched over to an XML project internally?

> I don't have any doubt that Larry and Nacho and the others can pick up if
> I disappear, and I'm not going to abandon tomcat 3.3.

I'm not convinced of that yet given that you have been the one doing the
majority of the commits and development work. (No offense to Larry or
Nacho).

> In any case, you don't seem to maintain or work on any piece of code in
> 3.x - and you haven't in the last year, so why worry now ? Leave that to
> those who are working on this project.

It isn't necessarily code that is the issue here. In case you missed it, I'm
the contact point for all Jakarta related email.



I get a fairly substantial amount of support email as a result of that as
well as other sources. I'm happy to do the job, but I'm also going to do
what I can to reduce the amount of work I have to do. Something about the
number of hours in a day...

>> I don't want to see two Servlet Containers supporting 2.3 under Jakarta.
> 
> That's why the 2.3 facade for 3.3 will not be released under jakarta.

You say that now. However, would you have said that before I started this
mess? I don't think so. That was not the direction you were moving in and
your commits clearly didn't show that as you did start work on it and were
asked to stop...

>> I can't get you and Costin to understand what I'm saying, however, you
>> understand Hans even though he said nearly the same thing that I have been
>> saying all along.
> 
> Than maybe it would be a good idea to shut up and let Hans do the talking?

How should I respond to this, with a comment about your mother or something?

-jon


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

Exactly the same priorities here.

Paulo Gaspar

> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Frieden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 02:38
> 
> Rather than add fuel to the fire, I would like to summarize what I need
> out of a servlet engine.  Hopefully this will help the members of the PMC
> make the correct decisions based off of what users need.
> 
> High Priority:
> 
> * Stability
>   We've been running Tomcat 3.1 without any problems for quite a
>   while now, and it has held well under moderate production load,
>   as well as very high testing load.  The speed could be better,
>   but its stable.
> * Speed
>   Everybody wants speed, but in a hosting operation such as ours,
>   the faster the software, the fewer servers we will need to add
>   to support the load.
> * Mature, stable web server connector
>   This is of utmost importance.  We would like for this to have some
>   features in support of load balancing, but we won't be using it to
>   actually do the load balancing.  An example of this is session
>   routing.  The only load balancers that can handle IP randomizing
>   proxies and HTTP->HTTPS transitions are SSL accelerators, and 
>   there aren't as many of those on the market as regular load
>   balancers.
> * Virtual Hosting
>   We need to be able to have the same context names, specifically
>   the root context, under multiple hosts.
> 
> Low Priority:
> 
> * Built in HTTP server
>   We currently use Apache httpd, and will continue to do so for its
>   flexibility.
> * API 2.3
>   As long as the API is 100% backwards compatible, we don't really
>   care if it implements 2.3.  We just don't plan to implement it for
>   the time being.
> 
> I would also like to say that everybody involved in this flame could be a
> little more civil and still make their strong opinions known.
> 
> 
> -
> 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: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 02:30
>
>
> on 1/15/01 5:38 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You opinion is EVERYWHERE!
>
> What is wrong with that? I'm an active developer on this project. Suddenly
> I'm not allowed to have an opinion on things?

EVERYWHERE?


> >> Exactly what FUD have I spread?
> >
> > Was it only rants then?
>
> Was *what* only rants?

Go back to the previous mail if you don't remember. I am tired of reposting
things for you.


> > The ones about how Costin should spend his time.
>
> Costin can spend his time however he wants. I never suggested he should
> spend his time doing anything.

Yes you did. Several times in the last hours.

> Where he spends his time is what is up for discussion tomorrow.

And since it has to do with your initiative, this sentence contradicts the
previous.


Have fun,
Paulo


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

> It is so funny, we keep going back and forth over stuff that is clearly
> Costin's FUD. He is attacking me directly with FUD and you are
> believing it.

No it is not. The expression "Jon's rules" just has to do with the way
you push things down other people's throats. And when things don't go the
way you want and you decide to switch a -1 into a +1, you fill the subject
of the e-mail as "Fuck It".

What you call being "very opinative" I call "Jon's rules". For me, opinions
are waves and what you do are tsunamis.

Today (tonight here) I am just taking the time to be as insisting with you
as you usually are with others. (It takes a lot of time huh?) But I think I
am not being nearly as impolite.


What makes me write is not what Costin writes and I got no FUD from him.
What makes me write is what you write and the way you do it.

So, I guess that saying that what makes me talk is "clearly Costin's FUD",
as you just did, ...is clearly FUD.


Have fun,
Paulo

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 02:42
>
>
> on 1/15/01 5:41 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Those are the "Jon's rules" I was talking about before.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 02:30
> >>
> >
> >> My mistake - it is of course a "project decision", the question should
> >> have been - does it looks like the "decision" Jon is invoking
> to justify
> >> stopping 3.3 ? Does it look like what Jon is claiming that I'm
> alone and
> >> all other developers have decided for 4.0 ?
> >>
> >> Costin
>
> How is that "Jon's rules"?
>
> I haven't made an decision for the project one way or another (in fact, if
> anything I gave a +1 for everything which I had previously -1'd...see my
> "Fuck It" email that I previously posted) and as far as "my
> claims", that is
> based on the votes that have already clearly passed.
>
> Let me refer you (yet again) to this url for the reference:
> 
>
> So, I'm still confused, how do you translate that into "Jon's rules"
>
> It is so funny, we keep going back and forth over stuff that is clearly
> Costin's FUD. He is attacking me directly with FUD and you are
> believing it.
> I don't get it. Wake up dude. Look at the facts, not Costin's FUD.
>
> -jon
>


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info - What happens if a 3.3 proposal gets a -1

[Hans Bergsten]

Paulo Gaspar wrote:
> 
> What happens if a 3.3 proposal gets a -1?

Unless another committer can convince whoever votes -1 to change
his vote, it means that 3.3 will not happen. Instead we will
continue to maintain the 3.x code base based on 3.2.1. That's
how decision making is defined for this project, see

  

> >From the whole content of your posting I understand that the 3.3
> existence is legal.

Illegal may be to hard, but no one has formally asked for votes
on its release and there's no release plan and no release manager,
all things that we say we should have according to the rules
above.

> What happens if it is proposed again and gets -1.

Same thing.

> What is the difference from voting to stop it?

I guess someone could ask for a vote to stop it instead of a vote
to release it; the rules above only covers votes for doing something,
not stopping something. But I assume the same decision process applies. 
The point is that I feel that decisions about the code base should be 
done by the committers on this list rather than PMC.

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: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Hans Bergsten]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > As a consequence, I feel that this decision means that Tomcat 3.x can
> > *not* implement Servlet 2.3/JSP 1.2, since it would be very confusing
> > for both developers and users with two code bases supporting the same
> > API levels within the same project.
> 
> While I disagree with that, I already did what you asked for and removed
> the 23 facade.

Yes, but you seem to create a lot of confusion about how and where
you will implement support for the new APIs eventually. That, I
believe, is one of the main reasons we have the current situation.
You said back in November that you where going to start a revolution
for the 2.3 stuff, as well as other features. But it never happened
and I see hints from you about adding support for the new APIs in 3.3 
popping up now and then, without a clear indication about when and
where.

> Tomcat 3.x has been specifically designed to support multiple Servlet
> facades, and that's an important factor and can play an important role in
> deployment stories - people can easily migrate from a version to another
> and gradually convert their applications.
> It is an important feature - that no other container has.

Maybe. I'm not convinced that you can keep the same core for all
versions of the specs (who knows what the 2.4, if it happens, will
hold?), at least not without having to resort to pretty convoluted
and ineffecient code. But that's besides the point right now.

> Because we don't have a rule to name containers that support multiple
> servlet APIs - it doesn't mean we are not allowed to support that.

Well, within the same project it creates a lot of confusion if we
have more than one container the same API level. Besides, the Servlet
2.3
and JSP 1.2 APIs are backwards compatible, so Tomcat 4.0 by definition
supports 2.2/1.1 as well.

> Anyway - a servlet 2.3 implementatio for 3.3 is important to insure it's
> future, and I already said I'm going to work on it. I also said this is
> going to happen on a different repository, and will be released
> independently, so I think that resolves the naming problem.

Great. As have been said a few times, you can do that as a revolution
using a different name than Tomcat within the Jakarta project.

[...]

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: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[cmanolache]

> What problems do I have again?
> 
> Lets see, I can think of a few:
> 
> I don't want to maintain code/resources for which the lead developer has
> disappeared.

The lead developer for Tomcat has disappeared 1 year ago ( from any active
development or support in tomcat, he's still around doing other projects  
). That's BTW the best prove of a project viability. 

I don't have any doubt that Larry and Nacho and the others can pick up if
I disappear, and I'm not going to abandon tomcat 3.3.

In any case, you don't seem to maintain or work on any piece of code in
3.x - and you haven't in the last year, so why worry now ? Leave that to
those who are working on this project. 


> I don't want to see two Servlet Containers supporting 2.3 under Jakarta.

That's why the 2.3 facade for 3.3 will not be released under jakarta. 


> I can't get you and Costin to understand what I'm saying, however, you
> understand Hans even though he said nearly the same thing that I have been
> saying all along.

Than maybe it would be a good idea to shut up and let Hans do the talking?


Costin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 5:41 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Those are the "Jon's rules" I was talking about before.
> 
> Paulo
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 02:30
>> 
> 
>> My mistake - it is of course a "project decision", the question should
>> have been - does it looks like the "decision" Jon is invoking to justify
>> stopping 3.3 ? Does it look like what Jon is claiming that I'm alone and
>> all other developers have decided for 4.0 ?
>> 
>> Costin

How is that "Jon's rules"?

I haven't made an decision for the project one way or another (in fact, if
anything I gave a +1 for everything which I had previously -1'd...see my
"Fuck It" email that I previously posted) and as far as "my claims", that is
based on the votes that have already clearly passed.

Let me refer you (yet again) to this url for the reference:


So, I'm still confused, how do you translate that into "Jon's rules"

It is so funny, we keep going back and forth over stuff that is clearly
Costin's FUD. He is attacking me directly with FUD and you are believing it.
I don't get it. Wake up dude. Look at the facts, not Costin's FUD.

-jon


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paul Frieden]

Rather than add fuel to the fire, I would like to summarize what I need
out of a servlet engine.  Hopefully this will help the members of the PMC
make the correct decisions based off of what users need.

High Priority:

* Stability
We've been running Tomcat 3.1 without any problems for quite a
while now, and it has held well under moderate production load,
as well as very high testing load.  The speed could be better,
but its stable.
* Speed
Everybody wants speed, but in a hosting operation such as ours,
the faster the software, the fewer servers we will need to add
to support the load.
* Mature, stable web server connector
This is of utmost importance.  We would like for this to have some
features in support of load balancing, but we won't be using it to
actually do the load balancing.  An example of this is session
routing.  The only load balancers that can handle IP randomizing
proxies and HTTP->HTTPS transitions are SSL accelerators, and 
there aren't as many of those on the market as regular load
balancers.
* Virtual Hosting
We need to be able to have the same context names, specifically
the root context, under multiple hosts.

Low Priority:

* Built in HTTP server
We currently use Apache httpd, and will continue to do so for its
flexibility.
* API 2.3
As long as the API is 100% backwards compatible, we don't really
care if it implements 2.3.  We just don't plan to implement it for
the time being.

I would also like to say that everybody involved in this flame could be a
little more civil and still make their strong opinions known.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

Paranoia time?

Problems "getting through":

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 02:11
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
>
>
> on 1/15/01 5:13 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This makes a lot of sense to me.
> >
> > Have fun,
> > Paulo
>
> Finally someone gets through to you.
>
> I also agree with Hans 100%.
>
> -jon


> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 02:27
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
>
>
> on 1/15/01 5:35 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The one person having problems is you. And it is not only with me that
> > you are having them anyway.
> >
> > Paulo
>
> What problems do I have again?
>
> Lets see, I can think of a few:
>
> I don't want to maintain code/resources for which the lead developer has
> disappeared.
>
> I don't want to see two Servlet Containers supporting 2.3 under Jakarta.
>
> I can't get you and Costin to understand what I'm saying, however, you
> understand Hans even though he said nearly the same thing that I have been
> saying all along.
>
>
> Other than that, what other problems do you think am I having?
>
> -jon
>
>
> -
> 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: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[cmanolache]

> > Nearly all the open-source projects out there have a "boss" who gets to
> > decide whether or not they like your stuff. If you fail to convince them
> > that your stuff is the One and Only Good Way to do things

Well, so far I believed that in  apache projects the developers who
actively work on the code are the "boss". 

Who is the "boss" here ? Jon ? Craig ? The PMC ? 

So far I considered Naco, Larry, Henri and the other people who actively
worked on tomcat 3 to be my "boss", and I tried to get them to like the
stuff. I still think this was the right decision.

Costin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 5:38 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> You opinion is EVERYWHERE!

What is wrong with that? I'm an active developer on this project. Suddenly
I'm not allowed to have an opinion on things?

>> Exactly what FUD have I spread?
> 
> Was it only rants then?

Was *what* only rants?

> The ones about how Costin should spend his time.

Costin can spend his time however he wants. I never suggested he should
spend his time doing anything.

Where he spends his time is what is up for discussion tomorrow.

-jon


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

Those are the "Jon's rules" I was talking about before.

Paulo

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 02:30
> 

> My mistake - it is of course a "project decision", the question should
> have been - does it looks like the "decision" Jon is invoking to justify
> stopping 3.3 ? Does it look like what Jon is claiming that I'm alone and
> all other developers have decided for 4.0 ?
> 
> Costin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 5:35 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The one person having problems is you. And it is not only with me that
> you are having them anyway.
> 
> Paulo

What problems do I have again?

Lets see, I can think of a few:

I don't want to maintain code/resources for which the lead developer has
disappeared.

I don't want to see two Servlet Containers supporting 2.3 under Jakarta.

I can't get you and Costin to understand what I'm saying, however, you
understand Hans even though he said nearly the same thing that I have been
saying all along.


Other than that, what other problems do you think am I having?

-jon


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 02:19
> 
> on 1/15/01 5:22 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Perfect, but as Hans mentioned, there was never a decision to stop 3.3.
> 
> Exactly why this meeting is happening and my original [MY_OPINION] thread
> started.

You opinion is EVERYWHERE!

 
> > And I have been seing much more rants and FUD from Jon, "which doesn't
> > help anyone".
> 
> Exactly what FUD have I spread?

Was it only rants then?


> > And my problem is not with Apache rules but with Jon's "rules".
> 
> Exactly what rules?

The ones about how Costin should spend his time. 
Or was it just a very strong opinion?

Have fun,
Paulo

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[cmanolache]

> As a consequence, I feel that this decision means that Tomcat 3.x can
> *not* implement Servlet 2.3/JSP 1.2, since it would be very confusing
> for both developers and users with two code bases supporting the same
> API levels within the same project.

While I disagree with that, I already did what you asked for and removed
the 23 facade. 

Tomcat 3.x has been specifically designed to support multiple Servlet
facades, and that's an important factor and can play an important role in
deployment stories - people can easily migrate from a version to another
and gradually convert their applications. 

It is an important feature - that no other container has. 
Because we don't have a rule to name containers that support multiple
servlet APIs - it doesn't mean we are not allowed to support that.

Anyway - a servlet 2.3 implementatio for 3.3 is important to insure it's
future, and I already said I'm going to work on it. I also said this is
going to happen on a different repository, and will be released
independently, so I think that resolves the naming problem.

> The way I feel right now is that the best way to answer this question 
> is by a vote on this list, where all +1 votes for TC 3.3 also means a 
> commitment to help fix bugs in TC 3.3. That's pretty much how we got

+1 

> from TC 3.1 to TC 3.2. Sam announced his intention to step up as the
> release manager for TC 3.2 and and start cutting milestone releases
> in a mail titled "Towards a 3.2 release" (14 June, 2000). For various

Where he also mentions that "development in the main branch goes on". 

> > Quick poll - how many of you ( who voted or not at that time ) read the
> > proposal as "3.x development should stop, Catalina has proven to be
> > better" ?
> 
> Not as "3.x development should stop", but as "development of the
> new APIs will be done based on Catalina while TC 3.x continues to
> be the RI for 2.2/1.1, with bugfixes and enhancements as needed".

Well, at that time the facade23 was already started - but I'm not going
to argue about that, and I stoped any work on it in order to focus on 3.3.
I just want to point that the decision is at least ambigouous in this
issue. ( yet again - it's just a note, not the start of an argument )

> released, so I helped out with a few patches there. For the future, I 
> will be more likely to contribute to TC 4.x though, since I will start 
> to play around with the new spec versions.

I was hoping to get you involved in the facade23 :-)
( I have few cool ideas for filters, it'll be a lot of fun )

> > Does it looks like a "project decision" ?
> 
> Yes, to me it does; it was voted on and got the required +1 votes and
> no -1 votes. That's a "project decision" according to our rules for
> decision making in this project.

My mistake - it is of course a "project decision", the question should
have been - does it looks like the "decision" Jon is invoking to justify
stopping 3.3 ? Does it look like what Jon is claiming that I'm alone and
all other developers have decided for 4.0 ?

Costin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

The one person having problems is you. And it is not only with me that
you are having them anyway.

Paulo

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 02:11
> 
> 
> on 1/15/01 5:13 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > This makes a lot of sense to me.
> > 
> > Have fun,
> > Paulo
> 
> Finally someone gets through to you.
> 
> I also agree with Hans 100%.
> 
> -jon
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info - What happens if a 3.3 proposal gets a -1

[Paulo Gaspar]

What happens if a 3.3 proposal gets a -1?

>From the whole content of your posting I understand that the 3.3 
existence is legal.

What happens if it is proposed again and gets -1.

What is the difference from voting to stop it?

(What am I understanding wrong?)


Have fun,
Paulo

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hans
> Bergsten
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 01:53
> 
> The way I feel right now is that the best way to answer this question 
> is by a vote on this list, where all +1 votes for TC 3.3 also means a 
> commitment to help fix bugs in TC 3.3. That's pretty much how we got
> from TC 3.1 to TC 3.2. Sam announced his intention to step up as the
> release manager for TC 3.2 and and start cutting milestone releases
> in a mail titled "Towards a 3.2 release" (14 June, 2000). For various
> reasons the release dragged on for a very long time, and eventually
> Craig took on the role as release manager and started to cut betas.
> November 27, 2000, Craig asked for a vote on the release of 3.2 and
> a plan for continued support of the 3.2.x branch. This vote got the
> required +1 and no -1.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 5:22 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Perfect, but as Hans mentioned, there was never a decision to stop 3.3.

Exactly why this meeting is happening and my original [MY_OPINION] thread
started.

> And I have been seing much more rants and FUD from Jon, "which doesn't
> help anyone".

Exactly what FUD have I spread?

> And my problem is not with Apache rules but with Jon's "rules".

Exactly what rules?

-jon

-- 
Honk if you love peace and quiet.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 4:59 PM, "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> So, Apache is the boss of Costin and pays him to do work on Tomcat 4 but
> he
>> works on 3.3 instead?
> 
> Nearly all the open-source projects out there have a "boss" who gets to
> decide whether or not they like your stuff. If you fail to convince them
> that your stuff is the One and Only Good Way to do things (although, unlike
> Costin, I don't think there's such a thing), then your stuff is not going to
> get in, and you'll have to choose whether or not you accept their decision.
> If you don't, you'll have to fork the project. I think that's fine, and it
> has happened quite frequently in oss in the past.
> But the main point is at at some point there has to be some kind of final
> decision taken by some authority. Otherwise it's chaos, and nothing
> productive gets done.
> 
> Frankly, if I was Costin, and I disagreed on everything as much as he does,
> I would have forked the project long ago (instead of regularly posting rants
> and FUD about how much the competing project sucks, which doesn't help
> anyone).
> 
>> How voluntary is voluntary work here?
> 
> Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything, but they have to follow rules and
> accept decisions (after contributing to the making of those decisions). If
> they don't, they're allowed to fork the project and keep the code. Where
> else do you expect to find more freedom ?
> 
> Remy

+1 !!!

-jon

-- 
Honk if you love peace and quiet.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 5:13 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> This makes a lot of sense to me.
> 
> Have fun,
> Paulo

Finally someone gets through to you.

I also agree with Hans 100%.

-jon


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

> Nearly all the open-source projects out there have a "boss" who gets to
> decide whether or not they like your stuff.

Perfect, but as Hans mentioned, there was never a decision to stop 3.3.

And I have been seing much more rants and FUD from Jon, "which doesn't
help anyone".

And my problem is not with Apache rules but with Jon's "rules".


Have fun,
Paulo

> -Original Message-
> From: Remy Maucherat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 02:00
>
>
> > So, Apache is the boss of Costin and pays him to do work on Tomcat 4 but
> he
> > works on 3.3 instead?
>
> Nearly all the open-source projects out there have a "boss" who gets to
> decide whether or not they like your stuff. If you fail to convince them
> that your stuff is the One and Only Good Way to do things
> (although, unlike
> Costin, I don't think there's such a thing), then your stuff is
> not going to
> get in, and you'll have to choose whether or not you accept their
> decision.
> If you don't, you'll have to fork the project. I think that's fine, and it
> has happened quite frequently in oss in the past.
> But the main point is at at some point there has to be some kind of final
> decision taken by some authority. Otherwise it's chaos, and nothing
> productive gets done.
>
> Frankly, if I was Costin, and I disagreed on everything as much
> as he does,
> I would have forked the project long ago (instead of regularly
> posting rants
> and FUD about how much the competing project sucks, which doesn't help
> anyone).
>
> > How voluntary is voluntary work here?
>
> Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything, but they have to follow rules and
> accept decisions (after contributing to the making of those decisions). If
> they don't, they're allowed to fork the project and keep the code. Where
> else do you expect to find more freedom ?
>
> Remy


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Remy Maucherat]

> So, Apache is the boss of Costin and pays him to do work on Tomcat 4 but
he
> works on 3.3 instead?

Nearly all the open-source projects out there have a "boss" who gets to
decide whether or not they like your stuff. If you fail to convince them
that your stuff is the One and Only Good Way to do things (although, unlike
Costin, I don't think there's such a thing), then your stuff is not going to
get in, and you'll have to choose whether or not you accept their decision.
If you don't, you'll have to fork the project. I think that's fine, and it
has happened quite frequently in oss in the past.
But the main point is at at some point there has to be some kind of final
decision taken by some authority. Otherwise it's chaos, and nothing
productive gets done.

Frankly, if I was Costin, and I disagreed on everything as much as he does,
I would have forked the project long ago (instead of regularly posting rants
and FUD about how much the competing project sucks, which doesn't help
anyone).

> How voluntary is voluntary work here?

Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything, but they have to follow rules and
accept decisions (after contributing to the making of those decisions). If
they don't, they're allowed to fork the project and keep the code. Where
else do you expect to find more freedom ?

Remy


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

This makes a lot of sense to me.

Have fun,
Paulo

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hans
> Bergsten
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 01:53
> 
> 
> The motivation for two separate repositories for TC 3.x and 4.x in the
> proposal says (among other things) that 
> 
>   "Support and enhancements of the existing Tomcat 3.x can continue 
>uninterupted, without disruptions caused by development on the 
>next major version. This is important because many developers
>(and server vendors) have adopted Tomcat 3.x (or plan to adopt
>Tomcat 3.2 shortly) into their environments, and will need
>continued support until they choose to migrate to Tomcat 4.x
>at some future date."
> 
> So the issue at hand, IMHO, is not TC 3.x *or* TC 4.x for Servlet 2.3
> and JSP 1.2; that decision has been made. Besides, the majority of
> voices I hear in support of TC 3.3 say they want a better, stable
> and supported Servlet 2.2/JSP 1.1 container, not a container that
> competes with TC 4.x as a container for the new API versions.
> The issue, IMHO, is how to best serve the TC 3.x community; continued 
> 3.2 dot-releases or move to 3.3 (and dot-releases based on 3.3 after 
> that)? It's not a given, considering the large differences between 
> 3.2 and 3.3 (even if they seem to be for the better). 
> 
> The way I feel right now is that the best way to answer this question 
> is by a vote on this list, where all +1 votes for TC 3.3 also means a 
> commitment to help fix bugs in TC 3.3. 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

> Paulo, try harder. I'm sure you will understand what I'm trying to say
> instead of constantly trying to turn things around into something they are
> not.
>
> -jon

I am afraid that's more like your technique. You even omitted this bit from
your posting where you make some pressure on how Costin should spend his
voluntary(?) contribution time:

Have fun,
Paulo

P.S.: You sound like some ex-boss of mine from long long ago!


> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 00:57
>
>
> ...as well as a split project's resources.
>
> Again, where does it stop? Maybe if you had stated that you wanted to
> eventually switch to working on Tomcat 4.x, I would have had some sort of
> affirmation that you would eventually stop on Tomcat 3.x and
> start on Tomcat
> 4.x, but that has not occurred. In fact, quite the opposite. You
> have stated
> that you don't think Tomcat 4.x is any good and you also stated that you
> won't work on it.


> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 01:31
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
>
>
> on 1/15/01 4:36 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So, Apache is the boss of Costin and pays him to do work on
> Tomcat 4 but he
> > works on 3.3 instead?
> >
> > How voluntary is voluntary work here?
> >
> > (Tell me please, before I contribute with something and become
> Jon's slave!)
>
> Paulo, try harder. I'm sure you will understand what I'm trying to say
> instead of constantly trying to turn things around into something they are
> not.
>
> -jon
>
>
> -
> 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: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Hans Bergsten]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...]
> Are you saying that a proposal that got 6 commiter votes ( which happen to
> be the full PMC, except Sam, plus Remy ) are representing the whole
> project ?

I'm preparing for the meeting tomorrow, so I'm interested in getting 
as much input as possible. I've gone through the archives of this list 
and read all relevant mails regarding this, so I'll try to give you a
feel for how I see things with regards to what have been decided and
not,
and what we need to decide next.

My reading on the voting on the proposal is that it passed, since there
where more than 3 +1 and no -1; that's all it takes according to the
rules. Any committer had a chance to -1 it but no one did that.

> Are you saying that the proposal meant to replace 3.x with 4.0 ? When 4.0
> was still 6 months away from alpha ?

No, the proposal consisted of three points: new CVS repository for
Tomcat 4.0, re-architecting of Jasper for JSP 1.2, and adoption of
Catalina as the code base for Tomcat 4.0.

Since the proposal passed, it means that it was decided by the
committers
in this project that the Catalina code base will be used for 
implementation of the Servlet 2.3/JSP 1.2 APIs (this is both implied by
the 4.0 version according to the revision rules for Tomcat, and was
explicitly stated in both the proposal mail and the proposal document
referenced by the mail).

As a consequence, I feel that this decision means that Tomcat 3.x can
*not* implement Servlet 2.3/JSP 1.2, since it would be very confusing
for both developers and users with two code bases supporting the same
API levels within the same project.

The motivation for two separate repositories for TC 3.x and 4.x in the
proposal says (among other things) that 

  "Support and enhancements of the existing Tomcat 3.x can continue 
   uninterupted, without disruptions caused by development on the 
   next major version. This is important because many developers
   (and server vendors) have adopted Tomcat 3.x (or plan to adopt
   Tomcat 3.2 shortly) into their environments, and will need
   continued support until they choose to migrate to Tomcat 4.x
   at some future date."

So the issue at hand, IMHO, is not TC 3.x *or* TC 4.x for Servlet 2.3
and JSP 1.2; that decision has been made. Besides, the majority of
voices I hear in support of TC 3.3 say they want a better, stable
and supported Servlet 2.2/JSP 1.1 container, not a container that
competes with TC 4.x as a container for the new API versions.
The issue, IMHO, is how to best serve the TC 3.x community; continued 
3.2 dot-releases or move to 3.3 (and dot-releases based on 3.3 after 
that)? It's not a given, considering the large differences between 
3.2 and 3.3 (even if they seem to be for the better). 

The way I feel right now is that the best way to answer this question 
is by a vote on this list, where all +1 votes for TC 3.3 also means a 
commitment to help fix bugs in TC 3.3. That's pretty much how we got
from TC 3.1 to TC 3.2. Sam announced his intention to step up as the
release manager for TC 3.2 and and start cutting milestone releases
in a mail titled "Towards a 3.2 release" (14 June, 2000). For various
reasons the release dragged on for a very long time, and eventually
Craig took on the role as release manager and started to cut betas.
November 27, 2000, Craig asked for a vote on the release of 3.2 and
a plan for continued support of the 3.2.x branch. This vote got the
required +1 and no -1.

So the status right now is that we have a plan for continued support
of 3.2.x, with an appointed release manager, but we do not have a 
proposal for releasing 3.3. Please do not make such a proposal before 
the meeting ;-) I believe it's the right thing to do, but I want to
discuss it with the other PMC members first.

> Quick poll - how many of you ( who voted or not at that time ) read the
> proposal as "3.x development should stop, Catalina has proven to be
> better" ?

Not as "3.x development should stop", but as "development of the
new APIs will be done based on Catalina while TC 3.x continues to
be the RI for 2.2/1.1, with bugfixes and enhancements as needed".

> How many of you can name the fundamental differences between
> tomcat3 and catalina and explain why one choice is better ( not to mention
> that tomcat3.3 supports valves  ).
>
> How many spent time reading 4.0 and 3.3 and believe that 4.0 is indeed
> simpler, better or faster ?

At the time, I did a quick review of TC 3.x and TC 4.x and found 4.x
to be the code base I believe in for the future. I still feel the same
way.

> And how many commiters ( including Hans and Duncan ) did stoped working on
> 3.x and started working on 4.0 ?

I don't have much time to spend on active development, so all I do
is "scratch my itches" now and then (and monitor the list to make sure
we stick to the specs). My biggest itch so far has been to get 3.2 
released, so I helped out with a few patches there. For the future, I 
will be more likely to contrib

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

Talk about rudeness!
=:o)

I have seen that posting with the +1 votes before.
Does it erase what followed?


Have fun,
Paulo


> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 01:30
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
> 
> 
> on 1/15/01 4:24 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Several members want to go on with 3.3 and the only one I see 
> making a big
> > fuss of stopping it its you.
> 
> I don't know what the *fuck* you are talking about.
> 
> -jon
> 
> > --
> > From: Jon Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 13:38:11 -0800
> > To: tomcat-dev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Fuck It.
> > 
> > To: Costin and the rest of you who commented.
> > 
> > You obviously know what is best and have shown me that I simply 
> have my head
> > up my ass and I'm just a complete jerk and I should stop now 
> and just let
> > you do whatever you want.
> > 
> > I give up. All of my previous -1 votes are now +1.
> > 
> > Have fun.
> > 
> > -jon
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 4:36 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> So, Apache is the boss of Costin and pays him to do work on Tomcat 4 but he
> works on 3.3 instead?
> 
> How voluntary is voluntary work here?
> 
> (Tell me please, before I contribute with something and become Jon's slave!)

Paulo, try harder. I'm sure you will understand what I'm trying to say
instead of constantly trying to turn things around into something they are
not.

-jon


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 4:24 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Several members want to go on with 3.3 and the only one I see making a big
> fuss of stopping it its you.

I don't know what the *fuck* you are talking about.

-jon

> --
> From: Jon Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 13:38:11 -0800
> To: tomcat-dev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Fuck It.
> 
> To: Costin and the rest of you who commented.
> 
> You obviously know what is best and have shown me that I simply have my head
> up my ass and I'm just a complete jerk and I should stop now and just let
> you do whatever you want.
> 
> I give up. All of my previous -1 votes are now +1.
> 
> Have fun.
> 
> -jon


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 00:57
>
>
> ...as well as a split project's resources.
>
> Again, where does it stop? Maybe if you had stated that you wanted to
> eventually switch to working on Tomcat 4.x, I would have had some sort of
> affirmation that you would eventually stop on Tomcat 3.x and
> start on Tomcat
> 4.x, but that has not occurred. In fact, quite the opposite. You
> have stated
> that you don't think Tomcat 4.x is any good and you also stated that you
> won't work on it.


So, Apache is the boss of Costin and pays him to do work on Tomcat 4 but he
works on 3.3 instead?

How voluntary is voluntary work here?

(Tell me please, before I contribute with something and become Jon's slave!)


Have fun,
Paulo


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 01:12
> 
> on 1/15/01 4:13 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > * Or are we supposed to only scratch the itches you approve?
> 
> That is a fucked up question. I'm not being a dictator at all and 
> I think it
> is rude of you to suggest that I am being one. I'm simply going with what
> the active developers have proposed and voted and agreed on.

  1. You already ignored the remarks of several active developers in the 
 process;

  2. You sure make a lot of pressure to make things go your way;

  3. It is amazing how you can still be so sensitive about rudness.

 
> > Or is Apache effort now only ruled for what is better for Sun's
> > interests? (Like having a 2.3 container real soon.)
> 
> I don't understand what your point is here. Please clarify.

Just trying to find the logic of it. And I am not the first one, am I?


Paulo

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 4:13 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Your favorite answer when a better one is missing.

No. I don't have time to answer things that clearly aren't relevant.

> But I thing this is the question.
> 
> * Isn't Open Source Software community driven?

Depends on how you define community. If you think of community as simply
being the users, I would say "probably not". If you think of community being
the developers, I would say "definitely so". Since day one, the ASF (not
Open Source), but the foundation has been driven by what developers want,
not what users want. This is clearly evident in the voting process as well.

> * Isn't 3.3 being wanted because of being better at least for the short
> term the reason why some members of the community want it?

I would say that is the reason why people who have spoken up want it.

However, whether or not releasing it is a good thing in the long term is
what I'm concerned with because I'm one of the people who is stuck
supporting it.

> * Or are we supposed to only scratch the itches you approve?

That is a fucked up question. I'm not being a dictator at all and I think it
is rude of you to suggest that I am being one. I'm simply going with what
the active developers have proposed and voted and agreed on.

> Or is Apache effort now only ruled for what is better for Sun's
> interests? (Like having a 2.3 container real soon.)

I don't understand what your point is here. Please clarify.

-jon


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 00:49
>
>
> on 1/15/01 3:05 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yes, it was about moving catalina in a separate CVS and implementing
> > servlet 2.3 and calling it tomcat 4.0. Not about replacing 3.x
> or droping
> > development.
>
> Right.

I am glad you agree on that.


> > ( but created the confusion about 2 completely different codebases with
> > the same name, and then for claims that Servlet2.3 support isn't allowed
> > for 3.x because it's confusing - since 4.0 has the same name )
>
> No, at the time, we didn't have a concrete plan as to what Tomcat
> 3.x would
> become. You have done all your re-factoring work towards making
> 3.x able to
> support 2.3 without making any proposals to the list as far as I can tell.
> You just went and did it.

Isn't your motto "If you have an itch scratch it" any more?

How bureaucratic is the process of making improvements one wishes after all?


> > Because Craig complained to my manager, and she asked me to refrain from
> > some posting. Which turned to be a great thing - since arguing about the
> > technical mistakes in Catalina's design was driving attention
> and interest
> > to it.
>
> So, the truth finally comes out. You decided not to vote because
> of your own
> political pressures within your own corporation. Hmmm...what does that
> say?

Careful there Jon. His corporation interests seem to agree a lot with you.
Any link?

At least Costin has been following his own path despite those pressures.


> > Yes, spending all the time contributing to tomcat - just to be
> trashed and
> > flamed by "community members" like you.
>
> Writing code is one thing.
>
> Acting as part of the project community and direction is another.

And code doesn't talk so loud anymore. Is that what you mean?

And what defines the community will?

Several members want to go on with 3.3 and the only one I see making a big
fuss of stopping it its you.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

> Like I said. That isn't what is being questioned.

Your favorite answer when a better one is missing.

But I thing this is the question. 

* Isn't Open Source Software community driven?
* Isn't 3.3 being wanted because of being better at least for the short 
  term the reason why some members of the community want it?
* Or are we supposed to only scratch the itches you approve?

Or is Apache effort now only ruled for what is better for Sun's 
interests? (Like having a 2.3 container real soon.)

If it is so, please make it clear.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar


> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 00:41
> 
> on 1/15/01 3:08 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Can you please give me concrete evidence against?
> > 
> > Beacuase you are the one against the flow on that one.
> > 
> > Everybody that knows both says 3.3 is better than 3.2. Are they all
> > wrong?
> 
> Like I said. That isn't what is being questioned.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 3:09 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Of course, what you don't like is either "not proposed or agreed" or "not
> justified " ( the -1 votes against you ) or "not agreed by the PMC".
> 
> And what you want is "what the community want".
> 
> -- 
> Costin
> 
> P.S. - ops, it seems you got me again - into answering. Sorry.

Costin, this has been like you since I have known you. You are an excellent
developer in that you can work on your own, but when it comes to working
within a project or group of people where you need to ask the opinions of
others and then take those seriously, I haven't seen you doing that at all.

Before Sam points it out, I will state that I am also guilty of doing the
same thing. However, I am trying to work on fixing that (admitted) portion
of my personality defect. What are you doing about it?

You think that by fixing Tomcat 3.x to be re-factored code is a good thing.
I agree. However, it doesn't fall in line with continuing the development
indefinitely because major changes mean the potential for major bugs and
further support issues as well as a split project's resources.

Again, where does it stop? Maybe if you had stated that you wanted to
eventually switch to working on Tomcat 4.x, I would have had some sort of
affirmation that you would eventually stop on Tomcat 3.x and start on Tomcat
4.x, but that has not occurred. In fact, quite the opposite. You have stated
that you don't think Tomcat 4.x is any good and you also stated that you
won't work on it. 

Given those variables, I feel that I need to step up and draw the line
somewhere and ask people to vote on that decision. That is what is going to
happen at the PMC meeting.

-jon


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 3:05 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>>> 2) When a revolution is ready for prime time, the committer proposes a
>>> merge to the -dev list. At that time, the overall community evaluates
>>> whether or not the code is ready to become part of, or to
>>> potentially replace the, trunk. Suggestions may be made, changes may be
>>> required. Once all issues have   been taken care of and the merge is
>>> approved, the new code becomes the trunk.
>> 
>> One of the agenda items for the meeting will be to discuss whether or not
>> the Jakarta PMC adopts this document. So far, it isn't officially adopted.
> 
> Ah, so it was ok for starting catalina, and a large number of  _commiters_
> voted on it 

No. The commiters voted on the proposals that Craig sent to the list.

> - but it's not valid until the PMC adopts it ?

Correct.

> Yes, it was about moving catalina in a separate CVS and implementing
> servlet 2.3 and calling it tomcat 4.0. Not about replacing 3.x or droping
> development. 

Right.

> And as the time has proven, calling it 4.0 didn't get more people
> involved. 

Does it matter?

> ( but created the confusion about 2 completely different codebases with
> the same name, and then for claims that Servlet2.3 support isn't allowed
> for 3.x because it's confusing - since 4.0 has the same name )

No, at the time, we didn't have a concrete plan as to what Tomcat 3.x would
become. You have done all your re-factoring work towards making 3.x able to
support 2.3 without making any proposals to the list as far as I can tell.
You just went and did it.

> But that's still far away from what you claim to be ( or make it sound
> like ) the overwhealming majority of commiters deciding to drop 3.x and
> move to 4.0. In fact the commit history shows pretty much that following
> that decision nothing change - the same people continued to work on 4.0.

6 people voted +1. How many more does it take?

> Because Craig complained to my manager, and she asked me to refrain from
> some posting. Which turned to be a great thing - since arguing about the
> technical mistakes in Catalina's design was driving attention and interest
> to it. 

So, the truth finally comes out. You decided not to vote because of your own
political pressures within your own corporation. Hmmm...what does that
say?

> Since the proposal didn't brough anything new ( Craig was calling it .next
> from the beginning, and moving it out in a separate tree was not my
> problem ) and since it didn't sparked any interest I choosed to ignore it
> - the even wanted to sent a +0 ( == do whatever you want with 4.0,
> let me know when you are done so we can check the claims you make ), but
> I didn't thought it's worth it.

However, it is now proving that it was worth voting on.

> Oh, no - more an oligarchy.

How so?

>>> And how many commiters ( including Hans and Duncan ) did stoped working on
>>> 3.x and started working on 4.0 ?
>> 
>> What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> you claim that the project decision was to move into 4.0 direction, and
> this proposal is exactly that and the commiters aproved that - well, then
> what happened ?

I repeat:

What does that have to do with anything?

> Yes, spending all the time contributing to tomcat - just to be trashed and
> flamed by "community members" like you.

Writing code is one thing.

Acting as part of the project community and direction is another.

-jon


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 3:08 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Can you please give me concrete evidence against?
> 
> Beacuase you are the one against the flow on that one.
> 
> Everybody that knows both says 3.3 is better than 3.2. Are they all
> wrong?

Like I said. That isn't what is being questioned.

> It seems he is not alone on that.
> 
> Paulo

That is why the issue is being brought up to the PMC level to decide.

-jon


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[cmanolache]

> > fact, in that same thread, there seemed to be support for ongoing
> > enhancements on the 3.x code line, even to the point of supporting the
> > latest specs:  
> > http://w6.metronet.com/~wjm/tomcat/2000/Aug/msg00486.html
> 
> Correct. However, that was never proposed or agreed upon.

Of course, what you don't like is either "not proposed or agreed" or "not
justified " ( the -1 votes against you ) or "not agreed by the PMC".

And what you want is "what the community want".

-- 
Costin

P.S. - ops, it seems you got me again - into answering. Sorry. 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[cmanolache]

> > 2) When a revolution is ready for prime time, the committer proposes a
> > merge to the -dev list. At that time, the overall community evaluates
> > whether or not the code is ready to become part of, or to
> > potentially replace the, trunk. Suggestions may be made, changes may be
> > required. Once all issues have   been taken care of and the merge is
> > approved, the new code becomes the trunk.
> 
> One of the agenda items for the meeting will be to discuss whether or not
> the Jakarta PMC adopts this document. So far, it isn't officially adopted.

Ah, so it was ok for starting catalina, and a large number of  _commiters_
voted on it - but it's not valid until the PMC adopts it ? 

So what you don't like has to be voted by the PMC :-) ? 


> > Is the mail you are pointing on the announcement that Catalina is "ready
> > for prime time" ? It looks like a repetition of the original proposal that
> > Craig submited one year ago ( i.e. "Tomcat.Next").
> 
> It was a proposal on what to do next. Which is what this discussion is all
> about.

Yes, it was about moving catalina in a separate CVS and implementing
servlet 2.3 and calling it tomcat 4.0. Not about replacing 3.x or droping
development. 

And as the time has proven, calling it 4.0 didn't get more people
involved. 

( but created the confusion about 2 completely different codebases with
the same name, and then for claims that Servlet2.3 support isn't allowed
for 3.x because it's confusing - since 4.0 has the same name )


> >> Now, he wants to go against what everyone voted for by continuing on with
> >> the development of Tomcat 3.x indefinitely. I'm going to call him on that
> > 
> > Besides the people who were working on Tomcat4, the only commiters that
> > voted +1 are Duncan and Hans.
> 
> So what? According to the rules, it takes 3 +1 votes and zero -1 votes.

But that's still far away from what you claim to be ( or make it sound
like ) the overwhealming majority of commiters deciding to drop 3.x and
move to 4.0. In fact the commit history shows pretty much that following
that decision nothing change - the same people continued to work on 4.0.


> Tell me Costin, why didn't YOU vote?

Because Craig complained to my manager, and she asked me to refrain from
some posting. Which turned to be a great thing - since arguing about the
technical mistakes in Catalina's design was driving attention and interest
to it. 

Since the proposal didn't brough anything new ( Craig was calling it .next
from the beginning, and moving it out in a separate tree was not my
problem ) and since it didn't sparked any interest I choosed to ignore it
- the even wanted to sent a +0 ( == do whatever you want with 4.0,
let me know when you are done so we can check the claims you make ), but
I didn't thought it's worth it.


> I'm stating that, according to the rules, the proposal received enough +1
> votes and zero -1 votes and that does indeed make it valid.
> 
> This isn't a democracy based on popular vote.

Oh, no - more an oligarchy.

> > Are you saying that the proposal meant to replace 3.x with 4.0 ? When 4.0
> > was still 6 months away from alpha ?
> 
> Nope. I didn't say that.

Then why do you point us to that proposal ? 

> > Quick poll - how many of you ( who voted or not at that time ) read the
> > proposal as "3.x development should stop, Catalina has proven to be
> > better" ? 
> 
> Nope. I don't. 
> 
> But, if you phrase your question according to what the proposal was
> suggesting in the first place, I would agree with it.

How convenient - well, maybe a lawyer would make sense. ( I can't resist
repeating that in this case the judge is also representing a side - so
probably a lawyer won't help )

> > And how many commiters ( including Hans and Duncan ) did stoped working on
> > 3.x and started working on 4.0 ?
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?

you claim that the project decision was to move into 4.0 direction, and
this proposal is exactly that and the commiters aproved that - well, then
what happened ?

> > Yes, this is supposed to be a community effort - and it has been so far.
> 
> Right. Because you haven't been acting like part of the community.

Yes, spending all the time contributing to tomcat - just to be trashed and
flamed by "community members" like you. 



-- 
Costin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 23:34
>
> on 1/15/01 2:25 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Actually, it is much more responsible to push for another
> release that is
> > easier to maintain by others than just leave it as it is. And
> that seems to
> > be the case with Costin and 3.3.
>
> Can you please give me concrete evidence that supports that claim?

Can you please give me concrete evidence against?

Beacuase you are the one against the flow on that one.

Everybody that knows both says 3.3 is better than 3.2. Are they all
wrong?


> > Still, it seems that you just want him to go away NOW. Does
> that make sense?
>
> Nope. I simply want him to play within the goals of the overall project
> according to the way that we voted and agreed upon. He is still continuing
> to choose to not do that.

It seems he is not alone on that.


Paulo


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 2:09 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Based on this and the actual proposed "long term plans" that followed, I'm
> not sure how this thread addresses when 3.x code development should end.

It doesn't. That is why we are having a PMC meeting and why this whole flame
war has started in the first place. Please go back and read my original
emails.

>  In
> fact, in that same thread, there seemed to be support for ongoing
> enhancements on the 3.x code line, even to the point of supporting the
> latest specs:  
> http://w6.metronet.com/~wjm/tomcat/2000/Aug/msg00486.html

Correct. However, that was never proposed or agreed upon.

> Therefore, I really don't see how Costin wanting to do a 3.3 is "against
> what everyone voted for."  I think it is a separate issue:  How long will
> the Jakarta Project and its community support the 3.x codebase in terms of
> enhancements, improvements, security fixes, etc.  Or, as you say:  "When
> does it stop?"

Correct. That is the question.

> Have fun at the meeting tomorrow...  :)

I think it will be fun. :-)

-jon


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 2:25 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Actually, it is much more responsible to push for another release that is
> easier to maintain by others than just leave it as it is. And that seems to
> be the case with Costin and 3.3.

Can you please give me concrete evidence that supports that claim?

> Still, it seems that you just want him to go away NOW. Does that make sense?

Nope. I simply want him to play within the goals of the overall project
according to the way that we voted and agreed upon. He is still continuing
to choose to not do that.

-jon


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 2:32 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'm not going to fork tomcat3, nor to abandon it - but for any new
> features and ideas I'll use a separate workspace, where I can work
> without fighting.
> 
> --
> Costin

Great! I encourage you to do so!

-jon

-- 
Honk if you love peace and quiet.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 2:15 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> No. What I am saying is that as a group, we choose to go in a certain
>> direction and voted on it (with zero -1's).
>> 
>> Let me refer you to this link (again):
>> 
>> 
> 
> You can also try reading:
> 
> http://www.x180.net/Mutterings/Apache/rules.html
> 
> To quote:
> 
> 2) When a revolution is ready for prime time, the committer proposes a
> merge to the -dev list. At that time, the overall community evaluates
> whether or not the code is ready to become part of, or to
> potentially replace the, trunk. Suggestions may be made, changes may be
> required. Once all issues have   been taken care of and the merge is
> approved, the new code becomes the trunk.

One of the agenda items for the meeting will be to discuss whether or not
the Jakarta PMC adopts this document. So far, it isn't officially adopted.

> Is the mail you are pointing on the announcement that Catalina is "ready
> for prime time" ? It looks like a repetition of the original proposal that
> Craig submited one year ago ( i.e. "Tomcat.Next").

It was a proposal on what to do next. Which is what this discussion is all
about.

> Was the discussion that followed "the community evaluating whether or not
> the code is ready to become part of ..." ?

Huh?

>> Now, he wants to go against what everyone voted for by continuing on with
>> the development of Tomcat 3.x indefinitely. I'm going to call him on that
> 
> Besides the people who were working on Tomcat4, the only commiters that
> voted +1 are Duncan and Hans.

So what? According to the rules, it takes 3 +1 votes and zero -1 votes.

Tell me Costin, why didn't YOU vote?

Please answer this as I have yet to see you state your reasons in public and
I would just love you to air your reasons.

> Also Alex, who withdrawled his -1 saying ( if you read his mail ):
> 
> " True enough; my point was simply that people who want 2.3, but don't
> want to change to Catalina, won't have to (since Tomcat 3.x will
> support the latest and greatest specs too)"
> 
> Are you saying that a proposal that got 6 commiter votes ( which happen to
> be the full PMC, except Sam, plus Remy ) are representing the whole
> project ? 

I'm stating that, according to the rules, the proposal received enough +1
votes and zero -1 votes and that does indeed make it valid.

This isn't a democracy based on popular vote.

> Are you saying that the proposal meant to replace 3.x with 4.0 ? When 4.0
> was still 6 months away from alpha ?

Nope. I didn't say that.

> Since that didn't looked like " Catalina is ready, we have facts to show,
> not only words " - no, I didn't, and it seems at that time very few people
> were interpreting that proposal the way you imply now. I din't - it was
> just a repetition of what happened in December 99  - and calling it
> ".next" didn't worked too much then, the same for calling it "4.0" now.
> 
> Quick poll - how many of you ( who voted or not at that time ) read the
> proposal as "3.x development should stop, Catalina has proven to be
> better" ? 

Nope. I don't. 

But, if you phrase your question according to what the proposal was
suggesting in the first place, I would agree with it.

> How many of you can name the fundamental differences between
> tomcat3 and catalina and explain why one choice is better ( not to mention
> that tomcat3.3 supports valves  ).

What does that have to do with anything?

> How many spent time reading 4.0 and 3.3 and believe that 4.0 is indeed
> simpler, better or faster ?

I do.

> And how many commiters ( including Hans and Duncan ) did stoped working on
> 3.x and started working on 4.0 ?

What does that have to do with anything?

> Does it looks like a "project decision" ?

Yes. There were no -1 votes and more than 3 +1 votes.

> Yes, this is supposed to be a community effort - and it has been so far.
> 
> Costin

Right. Because you haven't been acting like part of the community.

-jon


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[cmanolache]

> You must go to the list and post a clear statement that you will fight
> until the end to finish what you started - 1st inside tomcat and, if
> not possible, even outside Tomcat.

> Please don't attack anyone, don't fight anyone, don't argument about
> past elections and decisions - Jon and others are always able to fight
> that.

Well, thank you very much for the advice - so I want to make it clear:

Tomcat 3.3 exists and it has damn good architecture and performance. It is
also clean and maintainable. 

I am going to fight for it - because I think on the long term it's going
to be the best servlet container.

I am very disapointed with the way things work on tomcat-dev, and I'll try
to stay away as much as possible - but that doesn't mean I'll stop
supporting it. It just means that I'll try to develop new modules (
implementing new features like servlet 2.3 support, or porting JMX and
JNDI support from catalina ) _outside_ tomcat. I'll also stay away from
projects where Jon and the gang are involved.  

I'm doing that because I want to have more freedom and control over what
I'm doing. I don't want the PMC or Craig to decide for me if I can
implement Servlet 2.3. 

But as long as there is a chance for Tomcat 3.x to _evolve_ I'll stick
around - because of the people like Nacho, Larry, Paolo and all other who
put time and code into it. 

I'm not going to fork tomcat3, nor to abandon it - but for any new
features and ideas I'll use a separate workspace, where I can work
without fighting. 


--
Costin









-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Jon Stevens]

on 1/15/01 2:20 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Many people feel that 3.3 is the safest bet for the next year. Some of us
> want to keep real world production sites running with real world
> constraints. Those of us can postpone using the beautiful new features of
> Catalina but still need something a bit better than 3.2.

I'm not arguing that point at all.

>> My question that I'm going to bring up at the PMC meeting is:
>> 
>> Where does it stop? If we release 3.3 and there are bugs in it, do we then
>> release 3.3.1...3.3.2...3.3.3...3.4...etc...or do we call it quits on that
>> tree and focus on 4.0?
> 
> Sam and others already stated that 3.3 is easier to maintain. They did take
> a look at the code.
> 
> You don't believe them?

That has nothing to do with the question.

>> Costin has already stated that he is going to disappear. I have
>> yet to see a
>> real solid answer on *when* he is going to disappear, but that probably
>> primarily depends on whether or not there will be a 3.3 release from the
>> Jakarta Project (as decided by the PMC).
> 
> He also did most of the commits in 3.2. At least, even if he disappears, he
> is leaving behind something easier to maintain.

I'm not contesting that.

> The difference is that several valid committers and users might go too. And
> those are potential future committers/users that would evolve to Tomcat 4
> in one year or less.

I have been doing this long enough now that I don't even given a glimmer of
hope towards "potentials". I only glimmer on people who step up and say they
are willing to do something now *and* for the future.

Also, if those people go, they will go regardless. If they come back, they
will come back regardless. Most of the people involved with Tomcat
development are being paid for it in one way or another (like Larry with
SAS).

> P.S.: It is great to see how your manage your heavy schedule with such
> skill that you find time to keep all this fight going on.

It isn't a fight. It is preparation for the meeting. I want to make sure
that everyone gets in their voice of opinion and also gets a response. I'm
tired of being considered doing things behind closed doors. Now I'm going to
make damn sure that you get to see it fully in the open.

thanks,

-jon


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 20:50
>
> on 1/15/01 9:52 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Again - 3.x is the only reason I'm still here, and I want to
> finish it as
> > soon as possible and be free.
>
> In case you missed it, no software is *ever* "done". If you think you can
> just do another release and then stop all work on it, then as a volunteer,
> that is fine, but as one of the primary core developers, that isn't
> acceptable. You have a responsibility and you need to either stick with it
> or stop pushing for what you are pushing for.


Actually, it is much more responsible to push for another release that is
easier to maintain by others than just leave it as it is. And that seems to
be the case with Costin and 3.3.

Still, it seems that you just want him to go away NOW. Does that make sense?

Besides, he is the main committer and not the only one.

And then, as you usual highlight, he is a volunteer!


Have fun,
Paulo


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Michael . Smith]

Since you've posted the URL again, I went back and read the initial proposal
again.  Each time I read the proposal, I'm left with the same thoughts.  

First, let me quote part Craig's message that started the thread and the
voting:

"To facilitate development of Tomcat 4.0, without compromising our
ability to support and enhance the existing Tomcat 3.x code base, I am
hereby submitting three "Long Term Plan" proposals to be discussed and
voted on by the Tomcat developer community."

Based on this and the actual proposed "long term plans" that followed, I'm
not sure how this thread addresses when 3.x code development should end.  In
fact, in that same thread, there seemed to be support for ongoing
enhancements on the 3.x code line, even to the point of supporting the
latest specs:  
http://w6.metronet.com/~wjm/tomcat/2000/Aug/msg00486.html

Therefore, I really don't see how Costin wanting to do a 3.3 is "against
what everyone voted for."  I think it is a separate issue:  How long will
the Jakarta Project and its community support the 3.x codebase in terms of
enhancements, improvements, security fixes, etc.  Or, as you say:  "When
does it stop?"

Have fun at the meeting tomorrow...  :)

michael

---
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.epiphany.com

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 4:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
> 
> 
> on 1/15/01 12:56 PM, "Kief Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > I think that's _your_ reason for thinking he should go. I 
> get the impression
> > his own reasons for saying he wants to go has a lot more to 
> do with the
> > pressure he's getting to either conform to the party line 
> or get lost. What
> > you say above reads to me as "if he decides to leave it's 
> his own fault for
> > not conforming, it's not my fault for constantly pressuring 
> him to conform".
> 
> No. What I am saying is that as a group, we choose to go in a certain
> direction and voted on it (with zero -1's).
> 
> Let me refer you to this link (again):
> 
> <http://w6.metronet.com/~wjm/tomcat/2000/Aug/index.html#00195>
> 
> Now, he wants to go against what everyone voted for by 
> continuing on with
> the development of Tomcat 3.x indefinitely. I'm going to call 
> him on that
> because I don't see that as being right. I also don't see a 
> problem with
> questioning the fact that he has completely ignored what we 
> have voted on
> (to the point where he didn't even vote himself!). I don't 
> understand how
> you all can accept Costin's lone wolf mentality when this is 
> supposed to
> really be a community effort.
> 
> My question that I'm going to bring up at the PMC meeting is:
> 
> Where does it stop? If we release 3.3 and there are bugs in 
> it, do we then
> release 3.3.1...3.3.2...3.3.3...3.4...etc...or do we call it 
> quits on that
> tree and focus on 4.0?
> 
> Costin has already stated that he is going to disappear. I 
> have yet to see a
> real solid answer on *when* he is going to disappear, but 
> that probably
> primarily depends on whether or not there will be a 3.3 
> release from the
> Jakarta Project (as decided by the PMC).
> 
> If he decides to disappear after 3.3 is released (which is what he has
> currently stated he will do), then I would be very against 
> making a 3.3
> release within the Jakarta project as the primary developer 
> is not going to
> be around to support it. I would much rather see the 3.3 
> release happen in
> the forum that he is going to be support it under as that 
> will be better for
> the community.
> 
> Heck, today, anyone could go to sourceforge and do their own 
> release of the
> software and call it FooBar 3.3. Same exact code. What is the real
> difference?
> 
> > I don't really see that everyone needs to be marching in 
> lock step, and I
> > don't see the need to bully people who aren't toeing the 
> party line. Tomcat
> > 4 isn't ready yet, does everyone still loyal to the old 3.x 
> order really need
> > to be purged?
> 
> Please follow along more closely. That isn't the issue.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> -jon
> 
> 
> -
> 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: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[cmanolache]

> No. What I am saying is that as a group, we choose to go in a certain
> direction and voted on it (with zero -1's).
> 
> Let me refer you to this link (again):
> 
> 

You can also try reading: 

http://www.x180.net/Mutterings/Apache/rules.html

To quote:

2) When a revolution is ready for prime time, the committer proposes a
merge to the -dev list. At that time, the overall community evaluates
whether or not the code is ready to become part of, or to
potentially replace the, trunk. Suggestions may be made, changes may be
required. Once all issues have   been taken care of and the merge is
approved, the new code becomes the trunk.

Is the mail you are pointing on the announcement that Catalina is "ready
for prime time" ? It looks like a repetition of the original proposal that
Craig submited one year ago ( i.e. "Tomcat.Next"). 

Was the discussion that followed "the community evaluating whether or not
the code is ready to become part of ..." ? 


> Now, he wants to go against what everyone voted for by continuing on with
> the development of Tomcat 3.x indefinitely. I'm going to call him on that

Besides the people who were working on Tomcat4, the only commiters that
voted +1 are Duncan and Hans. 

Also Alex, who withdrawled his -1 saying ( if you read his mail ):

" True enough; my point was simply that people who want 2.3, but don't
 want to change to Catalina, won't have to (since Tomcat 3.x will
 support the latest and greatest specs too)"

Are you saying that a proposal that got 6 commiter votes ( which happen to
be the full PMC, except Sam, plus Remy ) are representing the whole
project ? 

Are you saying that the proposal meant to replace 3.x with 4.0 ? When 4.0
was still 6 months away from alpha ? 


> because I don't see that as being right. I also don't see a problem with
> questioning the fact that he has completely ignored what we have voted on
> (to the point where he didn't even vote himself!). I don't understand how

Since that didn't looked like " Catalina is ready, we have facts to show,
not only words " - no, I didn't, and it seems at that time very few people
were interpreting that proposal the way you imply now. I din't - it was
just a repetition of what happened in December 99  - and calling it
".next" didn't worked too much then, the same for calling it "4.0" now.

Quick poll - how many of you ( who voted or not at that time ) read the
proposal as "3.x development should stop, Catalina has proven to be
better" ? 

How many of you can name the fundamental differences between
tomcat3 and catalina and explain why one choice is better ( not to mention
that tomcat3.3 supports valves  ). 

How many spent time reading 4.0 and 3.3 and believe that 4.0 is indeed
simpler, better or faster ?

And how many commiters ( including Hans and Duncan ) did stoped working on
3.x and started working on 4.0 ? 

Does it looks like a "project decision" ?

> you all can accept Costin's lone wolf mentality when this is supposed to
> really be a community effort.

Yes, this is supposed to be a community effort - and it has been so far. 


Costin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

The saga goes on...

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 22:17
>
> Now, he wants to go against what everyone voted for by continuing on with
> the development of Tomcat 3.x indefinitely. I'm going to call him on that
> because I don't see that as being right. I also don't see a problem with
> questioning the fact that he has completely ignored what we have voted on
> (to the point where he didn't even vote himself!). I don't understand how
> you all can accept Costin's lone wolf mentality when this is supposed to
> really be a community effort.

Many people feel that 3.3 is the safest bet for the next year. Some of us
want to keep real world production sites running with real world
constraints. Those of us can postpone using the beautiful new features of
Catalina but still need something a bit better than 3.2.


> My question that I'm going to bring up at the PMC meeting is:
>
> Where does it stop? If we release 3.3 and there are bugs in it, do we then
> release 3.3.1...3.3.2...3.3.3...3.4...etc...or do we call it quits on that
> tree and focus on 4.0?

Sam and others already stated that 3.3 is easier to maintain. They did take
a look at the code.

You don't believe them?

> Costin has already stated that he is going to disappear. I have
> yet to see a
> real solid answer on *when* he is going to disappear, but that probably
> primarily depends on whether or not there will be a 3.3 release from the
> Jakarta Project (as decided by the PMC).

He also did most of the commits in 3.2. At least, even if he disappears, he
is leaving behind something easier to maintain.


> If he decides to disappear after 3.3 is released (which is what he has
> currently stated he will do), then I would be very against making a 3.3
> release within the Jakarta project as the primary developer is
> not going to
> be around to support it. I would much rather see the 3.3 release happen in
> the forum that he is going to be support it under as that will be
> better for
> the community.
>
> Heck, today, anyone could go to sourceforge and do their own
> release of the
> software and call it FooBar 3.3. Same exact code. What is the real
> difference?

The difference is that several valid committers and users might go too. And
those are potential future committers/users that would evolve to Tomcat 4
in one year or less.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar

P.S.: It is great to see how your manage your heavy schedule with such
skill that you find time to keep all this fight going on.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[Paulo Gaspar]

And you are being the usual pain too.

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 21:37
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
> 
> 
> on 1/15/01 12:17 PM, "Kief Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > If you're *really* concerned about Costin wanting to disappear, 
> why don't
> > you lighten up a bit? I wouldn't want to hang around either if 
> I got half as
> > much harassment as Costin does.
> > 
> > Kief
> 
> I'm being open. 
> I'm being honest. 
> I'm being truthful.
> 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]