jakarta-taglibs-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rahul Akolkar" <rahul.akol...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [cache] standard dependency
Date Fri, 26 May 2006 13:58:12 GMT
On 5/26/06, Kris Schneider <kris@dotech.com> wrote:
> Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> > Why do we have the standard binary in the cache taglib repo [1]?
> > Anyone mind if we remove it?
> I assume it's merely a convenience for building and install. It's been
> there since the initial Subversion rev in April 2002 (although I'm sure it
> existed back in the CVS days as well). I recently updated it to v1.0.6 as
> part of some work I'm doing in support of Bug 39612 [1].

Yes, the update is what got my attention to it. I'll remove it when am
back from the long weekend trip.

> > Moving cache to a 2.0 base will eliminate its dependency on standard.
> > In any case, IMO, its next release should be as a 2.0 taglib.
> Having a JSP 2.0-based release at some point is fine, but here's what I was
> planning:
> Finish cleanup and release v1.0.1. Concurrency/synchronization issues for
> Bug 39612 [1] not addressed. Perhaps fix Bug 18198 [2].
> Create a dependency on J2SE 1.4.2 and release v1.1. Fix
> concurrency/synchronization issues for Bug 39612 [1]. Fix Bug 18198 [2] if
> it didn't make it into v1.0.1. The dependency on J2SE 1.4.2 is to make it
> possible to use java.util.LinkedHashMap to replace the need for a custom
> LRU cache and to make it possible to use the backport of JSR 166
> (java.util.concurrent) [3].

Sure, an interim bugfix release makes sense.

Though I'm not sure about two. Moving to JSP 2.0 takes care of the JDK
1.4 upgrade, so if it were upto me, I'd fold those two in (its awkward
to require a JDK version higher than the base for the J2EE version in
use, and such a situation is best avoided, IMO).

> I don't see any community push for a JSP 2.0-based implementation. Of
> course, there's not much of a community push for anything theses days. Is
> it that the taglib community is really subsumed by Tomcat or the
> java.sun.com/java.net forums?

We have a lot more options (at the technology level) now. Speaking for
myself, I moved to 2.0 long time ago -- I have no interest in 1.1
taglibs, and little interest in 1.2. I think we should encourage moves
towards 2.0 (and new tag libraries to possibly require 2.0),
especially since all containers (that I use) have 2.0 support at this
time and are gearing up for 2.1 support with unified EL, so 1.2 will
soon be a couple of versions old. It will be a sign that we're moving
forward, as a community. So, atleast I'm pushing ;-)

> On the other hand, the main driver for changes to the Cache taglib is Bug
> 39612 [1] which states that the environment includes JBoss 4.x.x. JBoss 4.0
> is a J2EE 1.4 app server, which implies JSP 2.0. I've sent an email to the
> bug submitter to see if a JSP 2.0-based solution is workable. If so, then
> I'm all for just doing that instead of my staged plan...

Cool, and thanks for the recent fixes.


> > -Rahul
> >
> > [1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/taglibs/proper/cache/trunk/lib/
> [1] http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
> [2] http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18198
> [3] http://dcl.mathcs.emory.edu/util/backport-util-concurrent/
> --
> Kris Schneider <mailto:kris@dotech.com>
> D.O.Tech       <http://www.dotech.com/>

To unsubscribe, e-mail: taglibs-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: taglibs-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

View raw message