Costin Manolache wrote: > iasandcb wrote: > > >>Now it's almost clear that SRV 2.4 requires JDK 1.2 and JSP 2.0 does JDK >>1.4. The main issue is discrepancy of J2SE requirement between SRV 2.4 >>and JSP 2.0, which are supposed to come up together. > > > Actually, it isn't. > > All we know is that the current draft has this requirement. We should > find a proper procedure ( for example a vote on tomcat dev ) and then > ask our representative in JCP ( Geir for example - he's a very nice > person ) to request a change. > > I don't know what's the proper mechanism yet - but Apache does have > a representative and a vote, and we should have a way to have the > opinion of tomcat-dev expressed. > > If the final JSP2.0 will require 1.4 - then we'll have to do that. It > would be very unfortunate ( especially for jsp people ), and will > require ( IMO ) a separate tomcat without JSPs. > > My opinion ( and it seems a lot of people have the same opinion ) that > portability ( in the sense of beeing able to run on most OS and platforms ) > seems to agree with what Apache is doing in most projects ( Apache server > runs on more platforms than java - and did that even before 'write once, > run everywhere'). We should first explore the alternative for having this > opinion confirmed ( vote ? ) and expressed in the expert group. > > If the EG prefers features over portability - then we need to find a > way to create a distribution without JSP ( is this possible ?) and maybe > compensate by including cocoon or velocity.
Personally, I would support 1.3 (and 1.2 assuming you are willing to download missing libraries). 1.4 brings I/O improvements so it's a nice JDK choice, even if the nio API itself seems useless for Tomcat. I have no problem with including Velocity if people want it. As for Cocoon, it is huge, so this looks like a bad idea. If you're interested in the issue, you should make a proper call for vote. Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>