Bill Barker wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>The spec should'nt change now. I don't really understand why you think we aren't complinat right now....I tough your last change was to bring back compatibility with PFD 3. Do you have an example I can use to demonstrate the problem?
To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 5.0.9 stability rating
Bill Barker wrote:or
Tim Funk wrote:
Installed 5.0.9 from exe (win2k) 1) startup.bat worked fine, but the icon which calls tomcatw.exe" //GT//Tomcat5 fails will some "Current Thread not owner error" 2) Race conditions and connection handling in JDBCRealm - plus a whole host of other JDBCRealm bugs in Bugzilla applicable to 4 and 5. I hope early next week to have a patch which will close many of the JDBCRealm bugs. 3) Need to reinvestigate the JNDIRealm bug reopened.
For the first error - I am sure I just need to look through bugzilla,
error)the archives and just need to add something to the README. (User
release-noteOk. I'm willing to vote for a (weak) Beta in exchange for aThis works for me, Bill, and presumably others. There are reports on tomcatw in BZ, so it must be at least an uncommon error (given the code have stayed stable for a few releases). Even if the bug is mildly common, the old shell scripts are still there. I can put a note stating that they can be used in case the new .exe wrapper somehow fails.
I'm staying by my "beta" rating. Again, we cannot continue releasing
alphas just because there could be some non obvious bugs in the build.
In the current system, the period before the vote is meant to check if
there are no showstoppers. If the build is mostly clean, it must be a
beta, otherwise, it merely delays wider testing and finding bugs, which
is *bad*.
that Tomcat doesn't implement the current-draft's AuthenticationWhat is your plan, BTW ? Wait a bit more for the deadline to see what
requirements.
the final specification will say ? (IMO, the old auth matching rules
were not very good)
I was hoping for a pfd4, but it doesn't look like it's coming out anytime soon :-(. It's a pretty big change to conform to pfd3 (which is a completely nonsensical requirement :), so I was playing the wait-and-see game. Of course, I'm more than happy to do the grunt work to bring Tomcat into compliance with pfd3. However, if the spec changes to something sensible, then that means two big (e.g. changing interfaces in o.a.c) API changes.
Thanks,
-- Jeanfrancois
Remy
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) listed above as the intended recipient(s), and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not read, copy, or distribute this message or any attachment. If you received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and then delete all copies of this message and any attachments.
In addition you should be aware that ordinary (unencrypted) e-mail sent through the Internet is not secure. Do not send confidential or sensitive information, such as social security numbers, account numbers, personal identification numbers and passwords, to us via ordinary (unencrypted) e-mail.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
