>If the trafic becomes too big, we should definitely separate them, but
>what is big remain open ( tomcat-users is huge, I just can't read it
>without headaches - that's where a split will be most needed )
Exact, we'll have to split at some time just to be able to
see if the question is related
Kevin Seguin wrote:
>
> >
> > Catch me if I'm wrong, but currently j-t-c is dependent on tomcat
> > code, right? I make this statement without having actually looked at
> > the code for the connectors. I'm going by recent discussions about
> > how an API change in Catalina broke the build for
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Paul Speed wrote:
> Catch me if I'm wrong, but currently j-t-c is dependent on tomcat
> code, right? I make this statement without having actually looked at
> the code for the connectors. I'm going by recent discussions about
> how an API change in Catalina broke the build
>
> Catch me if I'm wrong, but currently j-t-c is dependent on tomcat
> code, right? I make this statement without having actually looked at
> the code for the connectors. I'm going by recent discussions about
> how an API change in Catalina broke the build for a connector.
>
some very smal
Kevin Seguin wrote:
>
> >
> > If we move more and more logic and code in j-t-c, we may need
> > to have soon a specific jakarta-tomcat-connectors dev-list ?
> >
> > There is today low java in jtc, mainly native code.
> > If all the 'ORB' java code is moved to j-t-c, for jk,
> > next maybe warp,
>
> If we move more and more logic and code in j-t-c, we may need
> to have soon a specific jakarta-tomcat-connectors dev-list ?
>
> There is today low java in jtc, mainly native code.
> If all the 'ORB' java code is moved to j-t-c, for jk,
> next maybe warp, and coyote also, we'll need to split
>+1 ( part of it has already been moved ).
>
>But if we do that, I would propose to _move_ it, not copy.
>
Does it means that TC 3.3.1 will require and use part of J-T-C
instead of keeping its own copy ?
If we move more and more logic and code in j-t-c, we may need
to have soon a specific jaka
+1
Saludos ,
Ignacio J. Ortega
> -Mensaje original-
> De: Larry Isaacs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Enviado el: jueves 13 de diciembre de 2001 20:00
> Para: 'Tomcat Developers List'
> Asunto: RE: org.apache.tomcat.util.net package in tomcat 3.x
>
>
>
I would prefer to keep Tomcat 3.3.x able to build independently
of JTC for now.
Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 12:12 PM
> To: Tomcat Developers List
> Subject: RE: org.apache.tomcat.util
3, 2001 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: org.apache.tomcat.util.net package in tomcat 3.x
> +1 ( part of it has already been moved ).
>
> But if we do that, I would propose to _move_ it, not copy.
>
> Costin
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Kevin Seguin wrote:
>
> > it seems like a
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Kevin Seguin wrote:
> ideally, you'd move the rcs archives to maintain history. however, doing
> that would presumably break all tomcat 3.x builds. i guess the next best
> alternative would be to move the rcs archives.
For now just import the current snapshot. Short term,
>
> +1 ( part of it has already been moved ).
>
by part, you mean o.a.t.util.buf|collections|http|res, right?
> But if we do that, I would propose to _move_ it, not copy.
>
ideally, you'd move the rcs archives to maintain history. however, doing
that would presumably break all tomcat 3.x bu
+1 ( part of it has already been moved ).
But if we do that, I would propose to _move_ it, not copy.
Costin
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Kevin Seguin wrote:
> it seems like a bunch of the stuff in the org.apache.tomcat.util.net package
> in tomcat 3.x would be useful outside the scope of tomcat 3. m
13 matches
Mail list logo
