BugRat Report #777 has been filed.

Bug report #777 has just been filed. You can view the report at the following URL: REPORT #777 Details. Project: Tomcat Category: Bug Report SubCategory: New Bug Report Class: swbug State: received Priority: high Severity: critical C

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

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. Pl

BugRat Report #776 has been filed.

Bug report #776 has just been filed. You can view the report at the following URL: REPORT #776 Details. Project: Tomcat Category: Bug Report SubCategory: New Bug Report Class: swbug State: received Priority: high Severity: serious Co

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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

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

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

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

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 th

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

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 scratchi

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

[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 ?

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

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 in

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> > 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

[Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]

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

Creative Writing

This pretty much summarizes today... LOL! -jon -- This assignment was actually turned in by two English students: Rebecca Gary (last names deleted). English 44A SMU, Creative Writing Prof. Miller "In-class Assignment for Wednesday". "Today we will experiment with a new form called

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[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

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 -- Hon

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 f

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> 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 con

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

> 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 opin

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 agains

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 "wha

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

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 s

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> 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

Compiling mod_jserv.so on AIX for IBM HTTP Server

Has anyone succeeded in building mod_jserv.so for AIX for the IBM HTTP Server (not Apache). I've figured out how to build the module for Apache, but not for the IBM HTTP Server. There is a -DAFPA directive, and there is some code in mod_jserv.c that seems to distinguish between the IBM HTTP Serv

[Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]

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 viab

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 Messa

BugRat Report #775 has been filed.

Bug report #775 has just been filed. You can view the report at the following URL: REPORT #775 Details. Project: Catalina Category: Bug Report SubCategory: New Bug Report Class: swbug State: received Priority: high Severity: serious

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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, em

BugRat Report #773 has been filed.

Bug report #773 has just been filed. You can view the report at the following URL: REPORT #773 Details. Project: Catalina Category: Bug Report SubCategory: New Bug Report Class: swbug State: received Priority: high Severity: serious

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 PROTE

RE: Breath again ???

Agreed! Paulo > -Original Message- > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 02:55 > > > Hi, > > I noticed that the list is starting to devolve a little so perhaps the > opinion of a complete outsider with no bias (that I am aware of) > could h

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

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...]

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 i

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 th

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> -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 >

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> 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 t

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

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 pr

Breath again ???

Hi, I noticed that the list is starting to devolve a little so perhaps the opinion of a complete outsider with no bias (that I am aware of) could help ;) >From what I understand the main objections of a 3.2 are 1. You don't want to have 2 different containers implementing 2.3 under Apache 2. You

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[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. > > Whi

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> 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 o

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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

Re: BugRat Report #771 has been filed.

BugRat Mail System wrote: > > Bug report #771 has just been filed. > > You can view the report at the following URL: > > > > REPORT #771 Details. > > Project: Tomcat > Category: Bug Report > SubCategory: New Bug Report > Class: swbu

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 qui

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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]> wro

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> > 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

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 ra

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 th

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 l

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> -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 hap

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> 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 w

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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: > >

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

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

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 > h

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 y

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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> 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

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> 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

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 (a

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> 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

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

[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 gon

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 Meet

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,

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: [E

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> -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

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> -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 bein

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 def

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> -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 to

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> 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

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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. -

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 rep

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 qu

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> > 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 cour

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> > 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 > > require

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> -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

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 yo

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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): >> >>

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> 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 othe

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 s

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> -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 fr

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 o

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> 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/r

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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 > becaus

RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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: >

Re: jaxp 1.0.1 and 1.1 RPMs

GOMEZ Henri wrote: > > Not a problem of room but a legal problem of distributions. > Yep, he knows - he's on the JAXP team. > Solution : Sun give jaxp 1.0 and 1.1 to Apache Foundation ;-) Duncan is working on the problem. Jim > >-Original Message- > >From: Rajiv Mordani [mailt

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 > yo

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

> > On the TinderBox/CJAN topic, how much earlier than the meeting > > should we arrive? > > I plan to be there around 10ish. > > - Sam Ruby > Since this is very interesting, I will plan on arriving shortly thereafter. Thanks Scott Sanders

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

Scott Sanders wrote: > On the TinderBox/CJAN topic, how much earlier than the meeting > should we arrive? I plan to be there around 10ish. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email:

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

Jon, On the TinderBox/CJAN topic, how much earlier than the meeting should we arrive? Scott Sanders - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tomcat 4 SecurityManager implementation

Hi Glenn, I had a few questions/comments on: > Jasper JSP class loading > The work directory will be moved inside the web application context > /WEB-INF/ directory. This will make security configuration easier > and security checks more efficient. The jasper work dir for a context > would be

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

Jon Stevens typed the following on 12:36 PM 1/15/2001 -0800 >Costin's choice is his choice. If he doesn't want to stick around, it won't >be because of me (or at least I don't think I can understand that as an >argument...maybe my fault, maybe not), it will be because of the fact that >the project

Web connectrors [was: RE: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]

Has anyone shown any interest in developing a Tomcat 4.0 connector for IIS? If not this is actually something that I'd like to work on. Unfortuntely, it is going to be a month or more before I could devote a lot of time to it. > -Original Message- > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMA

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.

BugRat Report #772 has been filed.

Bug report #772 has just been filed. You can view the report at the following URL: REPORT #772 Details. Project: Tomcat Category: Bug Report SubCategory: New Bug Report Class: swbug State: received Priority: high Severity: serious Co

Re: Session passivation (was: NullPointerException fromHttpSessionFacade.invalidate())

I typed the following on 03:10 PM 1/15/2001 -0500 >If Manager.releaseSession() method is implemented (I don't really like that >method name though), then StandardSession.expire() and invalidate() should >call it, and maybe some other places. Doh, actually the locking would probably be implement

BugRat Report #771 has been filed.

Bug report #771 has just been filed. You can view the report at the following URL: REPORT #771 Details. Project: Tomcat Category: Bug Report SubCategory: New Bug Report Class: swbug State: received Priority: medium Severity: critical

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

Jon Stevens typed the following on 11:50 AM 1/15/2001 -0800 >Right, but I (and others) are still here and myself (and others) are still >in a responsible position for supporting this software. Therefore, I'm most >concerned with a developer who makes a huge number of changes and then >announces th

Re: Session passivation (was: NullPointerException fromHttpSessionFacade.invalidate())

Craig R. McClanahan typed the following on 11:42 AM 1/15/2001 -0800 >> - If it is OK, should the container send activation/passivation events when a >> session is being serialized (or whatever) for replication purposes? > >The following comment is in the Javadocs at the top of >javax.servlet.h

Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

GOMEZ Henri wrote: > [finally ... a technical issue!] >I still didn't understand why TC 4.0 didn't select mod_jk as >their connector to WebServer. The code is clean and many bugs >are removed. A web server connector is not an easy piece of cake >so why reinvent the whell ?-( > To

Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info

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

  1   2   >