On Mon, 2001-09-10 at 16:48, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>
> Why don't we keep a NON-APR (JK), and progress works on APR based on WebApp?
> Joining AJPv14 and WARP?
The important thing in mod_jk is the modularity, the fact that it
supports multiple server adapters and multiple protocols. This part ha
On Mon, 2001-09-10 at 16:40, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> >> A third one could be an API merger between the two... If you want
to talk
> >> about it...
> >
>
> No, I meant between JK and WebApp... :)
Well, webapp has a very nice protocol - it would be a great addition to
jni, ajp12, ajp13 and ajp1
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is no question about APR stability or release-like quality. As long
> as APR people are not certain the API will not change and don't put the "1.0"
> label on it.
I have insider news on this (me and David Reid hang out pretty often
together,
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> >> Mod_jk will use APR - that's certain. The only question is when and how
> >> to do the transition without affecting the stability of the code. Having
> >> an APR1.0 out is one of the requirements - I don't think we can release
> >> mod_jk, even from
"Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> MMAP is the other scary stuff in APR, the new code (without Ralph's libmm)
>> it no more than one month old... I need it for load balancing, but I want
>> to double check with the guys in CA next week and see what they tell me
>> before publishing any
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> I'm actually right now working on the thread locks for Windows, and then I
> am going to start agitating for an APR release. We should have APR 1.0 out
> the door soon-ish. I am hoping to have it released sometime in the next month
> or two. :-)
That's
"Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 10 September 2001 14:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Mod_jk will use APR - that's certain. The only question is when and how
>> to do the transition without affecting the stability of the code. Having
>> an APR1.0 out is one of the requirement
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> >> This is the third time we agree on something in less than 24 hours. This
> >> implies that either I'm getting old, or just plain silly...
> >
> > Now, if you could agree on merging mod_webapp and mod_jk, that would be
> > something...
>
> Slowww
"Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Slowww down... :) If mod_jk wants to start using APR, I believe we're
>> talking, otherwise, I'm done with cross-platform porting, I live it to Ryan
>
> Oh no you don't. I did the cross-platform stuff. I wrote APR to get awar
> from it.
Yeah, tha
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>
>> "GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Ryan to became more than just a contributer :
>>
>> This is the third time we agree on something in less than 24 hours. This
>> implies that eith
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> "GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ryan to became more than just a contributer :
>
> This is the third time we agree on something in less than 24 hours. This
> implies that either I'm getting old, or just plain silly...
Now, if you cou
"GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ++1! I didn't even know it existed anyplace other than JTC. I have
>> been supplying patches recently for it too. Also, having duplicate
>> code anyplace is just a bad idea. I am on a crusade to remove all
>> duplicate code from every code-base thro
>++1! I didn't even know it existed anyplace other than JTC. I have
>been supplying patches recently for it too. Also, having duplicate
>code anyplace is just a bad idea. I am on a crusade to remove all
>duplicate code from every code-base throughout the world.
>
>:-) Anyway, from a non-com
On Monday 10 September 2001 07:48, Mike Anderson wrote:
++1! I didn't even know it existed anyplace other than JTC. I have
been supplying patches recently for it too. Also, having duplicate
code anyplace is just a bad idea. I am on a crusade to remove all
duplicate code from every code-base
+1
Larry Isaacs wrote:
>
> I agree with Costin's suggestion to remove the Apache 2.0
> version of mod_jk from jakarta-tomcat for Tomcat 3.3.
> This would occur after any bug fixes missing from
> jakarta-tomcat-connectors were ported.
>
> It makes much more sense to have it live only in
> jakart
+1
Saludos ,
Ignacio J. Ortega
> -Mensaje original-
> De: Larry Isaacs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Enviado el: viernes 7 de septiembre de 2001 20:45
> Para: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Asunto: [VOTE] Removal of mod_jk for Apache 2.0 from
> jakarta-tomcat for
> Tomcat 3.3
>
>
> I agree wit
+1
Keith
| -Original Message-
| VOTE:
|
| [ ] +1 REMOVE: Apache 2.0 mod_jk should be removed from
|jakarta-tomcat for Tomcat 3.3
| [ ] -1 KEEP: Apache 2.0 mod_jk should be kept in
|jakarta-tomcat for Tomcat 3.3
17 matches
Mail list logo
