2016-03-09 10:39 GMT+01:00 Konstantin Kolinko :
> 2016-03-02 16:42 GMT+03:00 Rémy Maucherat :
> > 2016-03-02 13:15 GMT+01:00 Konstantin Kolinko :
> >>
> >>
> >> 2. The feature of auto-switching sslImplementationName with
> >> availability of TCNative library needs better documentation. I suspect
>
2016-03-02 16:42 GMT+03:00 Rémy Maucherat :
> 2016-03-02 13:15 GMT+01:00 Konstantin Kolinko :
>>
>>
>> 2. The feature of auto-switching sslImplementationName with
>> availability of TCNative library needs better documentation. I suspect
>> that it may come as a surprise.
>>
>> There is documentatio
2016-03-03 21:20 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas :
> One thought I had for BIO support was that we could add something like
> this to handle the case where the user has explicitly selected BIO
>
> public class Http11Protocol extends Http11NioProtocol {
>
> public Http11Protocol() {
> super();
>
On 03/03/2016 16:41, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 03/03/2016 15:41, Christopher Schultz wrote:
>> Mark,
>>
>> On 3/1/16 5:12 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> To summarise where I think this discussion is going:
>>>
>>> - Create 8.5.x from 9.0.x with the following changes
>>> - revert all changes to spec API
On 03/03/2016 15:41, Christopher Schultz wrote:
> Mark,
>
> On 3/1/16 5:12 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> To summarise where I think this discussion is going:
>>
>> - Create 8.5.x from 9.0.x with the following changes
>> - revert all changes to spec APIs
>
> I would argue that anything that has been
2016-03-03 16:41 GMT+01:00 Christopher Schultz :
> Mark,
>
> On 3/1/16 5:12 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> > To summarise where I think this discussion is going:
> >
> > - Create 8.5.x from 9.0.x with the following changes
> > - revert all changes to spec APIs
>
> I would argue that anything that has
Mark,
On 3/1/16 5:12 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> To summarise where I think this discussion is going:
>
> - Create 8.5.x from 9.0.x with the following changes
> - revert all changes to spec APIs
I would argue that anything that has been added (in TC9) can stay; only
revert the removals and possib
;ll try to keep an eye
on this.
Cheers,
Larry
-Original Message-
From: Rémy Maucherat [mailto:r...@apache.org]
Sent: Wed, March 02, 2016 8:43 AM
To: Tomcat Developers List
Subject: Re: Tomcat 8.next
2016-03-02 13:15 GMT+01:00 Konstantin Kolinko :
> 2016-03-02 1:12 GMT+03:00 Mark Th
2016-03-02 13:15 GMT+01:00 Konstantin Kolinko :
> 2016-03-02 1:12 GMT+03:00 Mark Thomas :
> > To summarise where I think this discussion is going:
> >
> > - Create 8.5.x from 9.0.x with the following changes
> > - revert all changes to spec APIs
> > - make any necessary changes to work with Ja
2016-03-02 1:12 GMT+03:00 Mark Thomas :
> To summarise where I think this discussion is going:
>
> - Create 8.5.x from 9.0.x with the following changes
> - revert all changes to spec APIs
> - make any necessary changes to work with Java 7
>
> - Release 8.0.x and 8.5.x in parallel for ~6 months
2016-03-02 12:37 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>
> On 02/03/2016 10:26, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> > 2016-03-02 10:24 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas :
> >
> >> We could add a (deprecated) PushBuilder interface to o.a.catalina so
all
> >> users would have to do is rename the import to move from 8.5.x to
9.0.x.
> >>
>
2016-03-02 11:37 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas :
> On 02/03/2016 10:26, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> > 2016-03-02 10:24 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas :
> >
> >> We could add a (deprecated) PushBuilder interface to o.a.catalina so all
> >> users would have to do is rename the import to move from 8.5.x to 9.0.x.
> >>
>
On 02/03/2016 10:26, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> 2016-03-02 10:24 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas :
>
>> We could add a (deprecated) PushBuilder interface to o.a.catalina so all
>> users would have to do is rename the import to move from 8.5.x to 9.0.x.
>>
>> Users would also have to cast the request object in
Hi,
2016-03-02 0:12 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>
> To summarise where I think this discussion is going:
>
> - Create 8.5.x from 9.0.x with the following changes
> - revert all changes to spec APIs
> - make any necessary changes to work with Java 7
>
> - Release 8.0.x and 8.5.x in parallel for ~6
2016-03-02 10:24 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas :
> We could add a (deprecated) PushBuilder interface to o.a.catalina so all
> users would have to do is rename the import to move from 8.5.x to 9.0.x.
>
> Users would also have to cast the request object in order to call
> getPushBuilder().
>
> Not perfect b
On 02/03/2016 09:13, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> 2016-03-02 9:56 GMT+01:00 jean-frederic clere :
>
>> On 03/01/2016 11:30 PM, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
>>> 2016-03-01 23:12 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas :
>>>
To summarise where I think this discussion is going:
- Create 8.5.x from 9.0.x with the fo
2016-03-02 9:56 GMT+01:00 jean-frederic clere :
> On 03/01/2016 11:30 PM, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> > 2016-03-01 23:12 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas :
> >
> >> To summarise where I think this discussion is going:
> >>
> >> - Create 8.5.x from 9.0.x with the following changes
> >> - revert all changes to s
On 02/25/2016 02:52 PM, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> b) A more radical option is to use 9 as 8.x but remove the Servlet API
> changes. This would force Java 8 and many incompatible changes.
That looks the best for me, tomcat-8.5.x
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
On 03/01/2016 11:30 PM, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> 2016-03-01 23:12 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas :
>
>> To summarise where I think this discussion is going:
>>
>> - Create 8.5.x from 9.0.x with the following changes
>> - revert all changes to spec APIs
>>
>
> Yes. Do we have a plan when everyone wants to
2016-03-01 23:12 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas :
> To summarise where I think this discussion is going:
>
> - Create 8.5.x from 9.0.x with the following changes
> - revert all changes to spec APIs
>
Yes. Do we have a plan when everyone wants to do a push ? (I'm really not a
fan of it ...)
> - make
To summarise where I think this discussion is going:
- Create 8.5.x from 9.0.x with the following changes
- revert all changes to spec APIs
- make any necessary changes to work with Java 7
- Release 8.0.x and 8.5.x in parallel for ~6 months then stop 8.0.x
releases
- If users report proble
Am 29.02.2016 um 14:00 schrieb Rémy Maucherat:
2016-02-28 14:09 GMT+01:00 Rainer Jung :
I find it hard to judge between a) and b), because I don't know much about
the gap between only merging the connectors and merging anything but not
Servlet API. I think making HTTP/2 and also OpenSSL suppor
2016-02-28 14:09 GMT+01:00 Rainer Jung :
>
> I find it hard to judge between a) and b), because I don't know much about
> the gap between only merging the connectors and merging anything but not
> Servlet API. I think making HTTP/2 and also OpenSSL support in HTTPS
> connectors available is import
On 28/02/2016 13:09, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Concerning Java 7 vs. 8 it would be nice to allow the split as it was
> done with web sockets in TC 7. But it is not critical. Java 7 public
> updates ended 10 months ago. People who are not yet on TC 8 and who want
> or need to stay on Java 7 can stick
Am 25.02.2016 um 15:15 schrieb Mark Thomas:
On 25/02/2016 13:52, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
Hi,
This has been hinted at in the past, but is not being discussed anymore.
Possible options:
a) Release a new 8.x branch that would include the connectors from 9 to
support HTTP/2 [OpenSSL now allows reali
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Huxing Zhang
wrote:
> I'm +1 on backport HTTP/2 support to tomcat 8.
> I think this should fit into a).
Reasons:
> SPDY support has been supported until tomcat 8.0.22, and HTTP/2 is based
> on SPDY,
> so there should be no problem at Java language level.
>
>
I
Rémy,
On 2/25/16 8:52 AM, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> This has been hinted at in the past, but is not being discussed anymore.
>
> Possible options:
> a) Release a new 8.x branch that would include the connectors from 9 to
> support HTTP/2 [OpenSSL now allows realistic support without having to wait
Hi,
2016-02-25 16:15 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>
> On 25/02/2016 13:52, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This has been hinted at in the past, but is not being discussed anymore.
> >
> > Possible options:
> > a) Release a new 8.x branch that would include the connectors from 9 to
> > support HTT
I'm +1 on backport HTTP/2 support to tomcat 8.
I think this should fit into a).
Reasons:
SPDY support has been supported until tomcat 8.0.22, and HTTP/2 is based on
SPDY,
so there should be no problem at Java language level.
Given that:
1. tomcat 8 has already dropped SPDY support
2. there are m
2016-02-25 15:15 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas :
> On 25/02/2016 13:52, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This has been hinted at in the past, but is not being discussed anymore.
> >
> > Possible options:
> > a) Release a new 8.x branch that would include the connectors from 9 to
> > support HTTP/2 [O
On 25/02/2016 13:52, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This has been hinted at in the past, but is not being discussed anymore.
>
> Possible options:
> a) Release a new 8.x branch that would include the connectors from 9 to
> support HTTP/2 [OpenSSL now allows realistic support without having to wa
Hi,
This has been hinted at in the past, but is not being discussed anymore.
Possible options:
a) Release a new 8.x branch that would include the connectors from 9 to
support HTTP/2 [OpenSSL now allows realistic support without having to wait
for Java 9], and thus would remove a few legacy items.
32 matches
Mail list logo
