Hi people,
I just came back from holidays and red all this thread at once.
The main joke is in the initial posting where Jon goes from telling Costin
that "It really scares me that you are the only person..." in its beginning
to "We just don't have enough overall developer resources to support
>And we, as the newly formed Apache Software Foundation,
>accepted that code
>in donation as a point of start for the Jakarta Project. I was
>there, in
>that meeting room, that day when we outlined how the process would have
>evolved, with Jon, Stefano and Brian. And I was there, on
>stage at J
Jon Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on 12/19/2000 10:48 AM, "Larry Isaacs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If Tomcat 3.3 can prove it is as stable as Tomcat 3.2.x and is
>> more spec compliant than 3.2.x,
>
> Why does it have to be called Tomcat 3.3?
> Why not Tomcat 3.2.x+1?
Because it's
Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GOMEZ Henri wrote:
>>
>> I remember the hard discution about spinaker on xerces
>> mailing-list and IBM became more open after Sun position.
>> But in the Tomcat case we have Sun on one side and
>> individuals on the others.
>> Not really the same condition.
+1
"Pour la plupart des hommes, se corriger consiste à changer de défauts."
-- Voltaire
er* ;o)
Kind regards and thanks again!
Stefan Freyr
-Original Message-
From: Marc Saegesser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 19. desember 2000 17:05
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 3.x submitters [was RE: [MY_OPINION] Tomcat 3.x]
Craig,
I'm willing to volunteer my time and effort to
> Why not Tomcat 3.2.x+1?
This is the problem finally? a question of version numbers?
Whooa
this is entertainment, this is fun (from and old Cabaret Voltaire Song)
Saludos ,
Ignacio J. Ortega
AIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 04:01
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [MY_OPINION] Tomcat 3.x
Of course, these problems are fixable if we had more committers ...
especially
ones interested in applying bug fixes to the current production release to
keep
it stable and approp
-Original Message-
From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 2:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [MY_OPINION] Tomcat 3.x
> I'm not suggesting that we not release it.
Thanks, I misunderstood. If it were released as
3.2.x+1, I woul
on 12/19/2000 10:48 AM, "Larry Isaacs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Tomcat 3.3 can prove it is as stable as Tomcat 3.2.x and is
> more spec compliant than 3.2.x,
Why does it have to be called Tomcat 3.3?
Why not Tomcat 3.2.x+1?
> I think it would be a disservice to not release it as the fin
+1
Costin
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> Marc Saegesser wrote:
>
> > Craig,
> >
> > I'm willing to volunteer my time and effort to help out with maintenance of
> > 3.x. We are embedding Tomcat 3.2.x into our product so I have a vested
> > interest in making sure that the 3.
+1
-Original Message-
From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 12:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [VOTE] Committer Status for Marc Saegesser (was: Re: 3.x
submitters [was RE: [MY_OPINION] Tomcat 3.x])
Marc Saegesser wrote:
> Cr
Hi,
My 2 cents.
Our need at SAS Institute is for a Servlet 2.2/JSP1.1 that is as stable
and as spec compliant as possible. That need isn't likely to change
for at least 6 to 8 months. By the time many of our customers start
using Servlet 2.3/JSP 1.2, Tomcat 4.0 may be in maintenance mode and m
on 12/19/2000 9:37 AM, "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> As Marc points out, he has submitted patches, and has good ideas for what
> needs
> to be taken care of on 3.2.x. I hereby propose him as a Tomcat committer.
>
> Votes?
+1
-jon
--
Honk if you love peace and quiet.
"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
>
> Marc Saegesser wrote:
>
> > Craig,
> >
> > I'm willing to volunteer my time and effort to help out with maintenance of
> > 3.x. We are embedding Tomcat 3.2.x into our product so I have a vested
> > interest in making sure that the 3.2.x product is stable and rob
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
> >Look at the bugs in BugRat. The ones coming in for 4.0 are getting
> >linked, documented and closed faster than the ones coming in
> >for 3.x. The
> >bugs for 4.0 are fewer than the ones coming in for 3.x. Shit, I think
> >we've even got some 3.0's in
as RE: [MY_OPINION] Tomcat 3.x])
>
>
> Marc Saegesser wrote:
>
> > Craig,
> >
> > I'm willing to volunteer my time and effort to help out
> with maintenance of
> > 3.x. We are embedding Tomcat 3.2.x into our product so I
> have a vested
> &
Marc Saegesser wrote:
> Craig,
>
> I'm willing to volunteer my time and effort to help out with maintenance of
> 3.x. We are embedding Tomcat 3.2.x into our product so I have a vested
> interest in making sure that the 3.2.x product is stable and robust.
>
As Marc points out, he has submitted p
essage-
From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 8:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [MY_OPINION] Tomcat 3.x
Of course, these problems are fixable if we had more committers ...
especially
ones interested in applying bug fixes to the current product
GOMEZ Henri wrote:
>
> I remember the hard discution about spinaker on xerces
> mailing-list and IBM became more open after Sun position.
> But in the Tomcat case we have Sun on one side and
> individuals on the others.
> Not really the same condition. Hello Sam ?-)
Tomcat 3.0 was clearly a Sun p
GOMEZ Henri wrote:
>
> Hey Sam (Rubys) what's the IBM position on this project ?
I've been trying to stay out of this particular discussion. Personally, I
agree with James Cook that Jon is doing an excellent job of alienating
people.
Once upon a time, Craig was the lone heretic. The fact that
>It is run under Apache rules and I haven`t seen anywhere that
>the votes of
>the 3.X committers count less than the 4.0 committers, so it`s still
>democratic.
The point is that when future of Tomcat was decided (some month agos), many
of the
actual commiters (including me) where outside tomcat (
>TC 4.0 appears to be more a Sun Project (core developpers are all Sun)
>than an Apache Project.
It is run under Apache rules and I haven`t seen anywhere that the votes of
the 3.X committers count less than the 4.0 committers, so it`s still
democratic.
>TC 3.3 is now the only tomcat opensource
>Look at the bugs in BugRat. The ones coming in for 4.0 are getting
>linked, documented and closed faster than the ones coming in
>for 3.x. The
>bugs for 4.0 are fewer than the ones coming in for 3.x. Shit, I think
>we've even got some 3.0's in there that haven't been dealt with!
I'm sorry to s
Ok, too much mail on this thread, I'll try to summarize my answers:
- The only reason for me to stay on this project is that I want to finish
something that I started. In my view, tomcat 3.3 ( or what will be in the
main branch of cvs in about a month or 2 ) will be the "right" thing
based on the
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Jon Stevens wrote:
> p.s. One thing that you are all not remembering or even realize is that
> Catalina was originally going to be JServ 2.0. If Sun had never given us the
> source code to Tomcat, then you would have been using Catalina anyway.
I hope EVERYONE takes what Jon
kenneth topp wrote:
> Hello,
>
> (another user here)
>
> If the difference were spoken as tc 3.x follows servlet 2.2/jsp 1.1 where
> tc 4.x follows servlet2.3/jsp 1.2, then it's a clear difference that I
> can appreciate, and even base decisions on.
>
For any previous version change in the serv
Hello,
(another user here)
If the difference were spoken as tc 3.x follows servlet 2.2/jsp 1.1 where
tc 4.x follows servlet2.3/jsp 1.2, then it's a clear difference that I
can appreciate, and even base decisions on.
I decided to follow 3.2, as I felt that it was getting the most exercise
then
Henri Gomez wrote:
> [snip]
> > Tomcat 3.x or 4.x? That is the confusion that needs to be cleared up.
>
> The confusion will exist also for Apache 1.3 / 2.0. And this one will be much
> more important.
>
It's actually pretty clear in the web server case. The active development is
happening on 2
David Rees wrote:
> Hi Craig,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >
> > > Frankly, I am disappointed in the development process of
> > Tomcat. I posted a
> > > simple documentation patch (See bug report 528) two weeks ago
> > for the FAQ
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Henri Gomez wrote:
> The users will decide. Be fair, let them evaluate TC 3.3.
Speaking as a user, this doesn't make sense. It's fine to compare
two different products, but it doesn't make any sense to compare two
different versions of the same product that are under
on 12/18/2000 2:47 PM, "Henri Gomez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There will be Apache 1.3.x and Apache 2.0 sites around the world for many
> time.
> Why not TC 3.x and 4.x ?
Feature development doesn't really seem to be happening on HTTPd 1.3.x. All
of the primary developers are focused on 2.0
> Ok, so you are going to stop at 3.3 and then what? Abandon things? Hope
> that
> others pick things up? Move to Catalina? What are you going to do?
Costin said he will continue to maintain the 3.3 base. But I think is that
after such objections, he will not start a 3.4 tree (at least not under
Hi Jon,
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Of course not. That is why I'm suggesting to move away from it for the
> future and opening the discussion of that now. Would you rather that we
> continue to follow down this path of split trees forever? Would you rather
> that all of ou
on 12/18/2000 1:36 PM, "James Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think Jon is going for the record to see how many developers and people of
> good conscience he can alienate.
I thank you for your opinion. I'm sorry if people feel alienated as that
isn't my intention.
> Costin, I appreciate al
- Original Message -
From: "Jon Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think Jon is going for the record to see how many developers and people of
good conscience he can alienate.
Costin, I appreciate all of the hard work you have done on the Tomcat project.
You were pivotal in cleaning up a ra
on 12/18/2000 12:20 AM, "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see any need to go beyond 3.3 - and I said
> many times I'll stop doing any major changes in the
> core after 3.3 is done. I'll just fix bugs and develop
> modules - most of them in my private, non-apache space
> ( I'
on 12/18/2000 12:40 PM, "David Rees" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Although I might point out that there seems to be at least one full time
> paid employee on the project. :-)
>
> -Dave
Costin is not paid to work on this project.
-jon
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> There are no issues with porting to 4.0. I just took an app
> developed on 3.x
> and moved it to 4.0 without any problems.
Maybe for your app it ported over, but for others (specifically those
working with XML and parsers other than the one bundl
Paul Frieden wrote:
> Not everybody is in a position to throw away their investment in the 3.x
> series just yet.
Absolutely true. That's why I went back and did 3.2, because I totally understand
this reasoning.
Some people can't even get off 3.1 yet, because Costin changed so much in 3.2
:-).
Hi Craig,
> -Original Message-
> From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > Frankly, I am disappointed in the development process of
> Tomcat. I posted a
> > simple documentation patch (See bug report 528) two weeks ago
> for the FAQ
> > included with the Tomcat 3.x and
on 12/18/2000 11:47 AM, "David Rees" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It really is part of the same issue. Because Greg is not willing to jump to
> 4.0, the idea of continuing development on the 3.x branch (work towards 3.3)
> is welcome and reassuring. There will likely be some issues with porting
Jon ha escrito:
> Please look at all the information available to you about
> what is happening
> before commenting again.
To give people a chance to get a personal opinion let's go to the REAL
start of this thread, a interesting exercise ( at least for me )
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l
David Rees wrote:
>
> Frankly, I am disappointed in the development process of Tomcat. I posted a
> simple documentation patch (See bug report 528) two weeks ago for the FAQ
> included with the Tomcat 3.x and posted a couple messages about it. I
> haven't heard a thing about it and saw the rele
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> on 12/18/2000 10:01 AM, "Greg Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > As a use of Tomcat 3.1 on several production machines, may I
> say "thanks" also
> > to
> > Costin and everyone else who supports 3.1 (and 3.1.1, 3
on 12/18/2000 11:27 AM, "Costin Manolache" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In fact, 3.3 doesn't even exist - when the development
> on the main branch of tomcat 3 will reach a stable
> state we can discuss about 3.3 , and you can argue
> that it's better or worse than 3.2 and we should ( or
> should
> I wish people would pay more attention to what the
> overall issues are
> instead of focusing on entirely the wrong things.
+1 on this
> The issue is the idea of a 3.3 and I'm not saying to
> "jump" to 4.0.
I don't see how did you created a "3.3" issue -
tomcat3.x development continues as i
> I don't agree. TC3.3 is a rewrite of TC3.2, with all
> of the TC4 "fancy features" (and some more).
3.3 is not a "rewrite" of 3.2 - some code was moved
for better organization and modularity, and we
finished a number of optimizations that were started
during 3.2 development.
Yes, a lot of cod
on 12/18/2000 10:01 AM, "Greg Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a use of Tomcat 3.1 on several production machines, may I say "thanks" also
> to
> Costin and everyone else who supports 3.1 (and 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.2.1, etc.) We
> are
> in no position to jump to 4.0 just because its trendy and ha
> * The good point with TC 4.0 are all the good things inside (JMX, JAXP
> 1.0/1.1)
> The bad point on TC 4.0 are all these good things (JMX, JAXP 1.0/1.1).
>
> You have seens the thread on '[PROPOSAL] building is easy'. We need too
> many
> things now to build TC 4.0.
You need JAXP, JSSE a
As a use of Tomcat 3.1 on several production machines, may I say "thanks" also to
Costin and everyone else who supports 3.1 (and 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.2.1, etc.) We are
in no position to jump to 4.0 just because its trendy and has more "development
activity"...
Thanks again,
-Greg Bailey
Paul Frieden
Not everybody is in a position to throw away their investment in the 3.x
series just yet. While its fun to try the latest and greatest, not
everybody can do that. Craig, is java.sun.com running on Tomcat 4.0?
Jon, is www.apache.org running Apache 2.0 yet? When do you think they
will be ready t
I definitely agree with Henry & Costin...
Saludos ,
Ignacio J. Ortega
>It really scares me that you are the only person (as far as I
>can tell) that
>is seriously interested in maintaining and developing Tomcat
>3.x into the
>future. It is not good to have the entire rest of the core
>developers work
>on Tomcat 4.x and having you sit here and say that you are
>g
Hi Jon,
First, I want to thank you for the advices and your
mail - even if I don't like what you say I do believe
that your mail have some good things for me.
> It really scares me that you are the only person (as
> far as I can tell) that is seriously interested in
?> maintaining and developing
on 12/16/2000 11:55 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since I believe in a different future and direction, I'll spend the
> time to make mod_jk and tomcat3.2 ( and the future 3.3 ) work with
> Apache2.0.
>
> mod_webapp is a nice start and I would love to see it integrated wi
56 matches
Mail list logo
