Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Message-ID: <3B69AE4D.EE5C9897@mhsoftware.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 13:47:25 -0600
From: Christopher Cain <ccain@mhsoftware.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: Sources in Binary Distributions
References: <2A0C111BE7E9D411854200105A9CB7851124A3@PST>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Rob doesn't need me to defend him ... but I will anyway =)

Arun Katkere wrote:
> 
> OK, Rob, you are the voice of the majority (I probably missed a vote on this
> topic where people told you so)

Craig initially proposed it early last week, and I was the first one to
step up with vocal support for it (and I am still the loudest proponent
:-)

> and we are a few lazy developers wanting to
> avoid an extra download. Take the source out.

I'm not sure what Rob's reaction to this is, but I'll say it ...
essentially, yes. I would have phrased it in a slightly more polite way,
but that's essentially the argument. The argument of leaving it in as a
marketing ploy for attracting new developers is probably the strongest
argument I've heard to date (although in my own very humble opinion, the
overhead outweighs the slight potentional benefit).

The argument that the occasional hackers don't want to be bothered with
a separate download just makes no sense to me. If you plan on doing any
hacking whatsoever, just get the source. Hell, alot of people who don't
plan on EVER hacking it get the source, if for no other reason just so
that they can build it on their own machine. In my opinion, the people
who download the binaries are not the slightest bit interested in the
code, or even in building it themselves. They want to download it,
unpack it, and move on with their day. Anyone who wants to do anything
other than to get it up and running in 15 minutes grabs the source.

> -arun
> 
> ps: For what it is worth, my argument was not "leave src in there so that
> when I want to look at the source, i don't have to download a src dist" as
> you put it, it was that having the Java source available to a debugger is a
> legetimate reason to include source in a "binary" distribution (you can
> leave it jar'd if you like, as Sun does with Java2 SDK).

Again, anyone savvy enough to set up Tomcat in a debugging tool space
(last time I tried it, it was ... less than intuitive) is probably
working off the source dist. People willing to invest that much time and
effort in tracking down a problem themselves are not the same people who
grab binaries. With all due respect to end users, they simply e-mail us
and say "it's broken" :-)

> Let me go back to lurking and leave the business of posting to those of you who can post the
> same argument 10 times without reading what the other person is saying.

That's simply a ludicrous statement. If you think Rob is not one of the
more ... eh, polite ... posters, then you clearly have not been
subscribed to any dev lists for very long. If simply failing to address
every single one of your points directly qualifies as a slight, then God
help you when someone like Jon gets ahold of you ;-)

Rob is definitely one of the more personable characters who hangs out
here, and I usually see him go out of his way to play well with others.
I say this not as an insult in any way, but you should really lighten up
a bit if you plan on involving yourself in dev-list discussions. It's
not as if your points are patently ludicrous, and in fact your debugger
argument was actually quite interesting, even if I don't personally see
it as good enough reason to leave source in a binary distro. You're
actively involved in this discussion, yet you didn't feel the need to
address my "everything in it's rightful place" argument, so does that
mean that you are ignoring what *I* am saying? Certainly not, so don't
take it so personally. We're all bootylicious here, my man ... ease up a
bit :-)

- Christopher

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rob S. [mailto:rslifka@home.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 9:39 AM
> > To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Sources in Binary Distributions
> >
> >
> > So what we have here is a minority of developers who look
> > through the Tomcat
> > source, versus the majority of people who have no interest in
> > the /src dir.
> > The argument is "leave src in there so that when I want to look at the
> > source, i don't have to download a src dist".
> >
> > For some reason, the "keep it in there" argument almost makes
> > it sounds like
> > the src is unavailable unless it's in the bin build.
> > Personally, for all of
> > the people that could care less about the source, I don't
> > think it's asking
> > much for people who want to look at the source to go and get it...?
> >
> > - r
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Lo�c Lef�vre [mailto:llefevre@fivia.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 12:10 PM
> > > To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: Sources in Binary Distributions
> > >
> > >
> > > Absolutely agree with you!
> > >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : Arun Katkere [mailto:katkere@praja.com]
> > > Envoy� : jeudi 2 ao�t 2001 17:28
> > > � : 'tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org'
> > > Objet : RE: Sources in Binary Distributions
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't generally throw in my $0.02 into a well worn thread
> > and add to the
> > > noise , but there is another issue which I didn't see
> > anyone bring up.
> > >
> > > Having source around helps you with debugging. And if that
> > > results in better
> > > bug reports, i.e., instead of "it doesn't work and here is the
> > > stack trace",
> > > you get "it doesn't work because you didn't check for null around
> > > this line
> > > of this file", it is probably worth it.   Keep in mind that
> > many of Tomcat
> > > users are competent Java developers. And we are not talking about
> > > the entire
> > > build system here. Just the basic .java files. Not even
> > native components
> > > (which don't aid in this purpose). Sun's Java2 SDK includes the
> > > source (just
> > > the .java files) for I suspect the same reason.
> > >
> > > Personally, I download the source distribution only when there is
> > > a critical
> > > issue in Tomcat that we need resolved now, and patch and
> > build with that
> > > fix. Source in the binary on the other hand is useful for many
> > > reasons even
> > > if you discount the "first step towards getting people involved"
> > > argument. A
> > > quick check of some aspect of servlet/JSP spec(without going
> > > through 100s of
> > > pages of PDF). Help quickly identify whether the issue is
> > with Tomcat or
> > > your code. All on machines where you typically don't have the full
> > > development environment set up (when we are talking about
> > JSP and not
> > > servlets).
> > >
> > > Of course, one can always download the "source distribution". So,
> > > if you are
> > > set on saving folks a few seconds (or minutes) of download time
> > > at a slight
> > > cost for those of us who do find it invaluable, that's fine.
> > >
> > > -arun
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Rob S. [mailto:rslifka@home.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 4:19 AM
> > > > To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> > > > Subject: RE: Sources in Binary Distributions
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I'd like to second that.  I am currently not involved
> > in any active
> > > > > development, but looking at sources contained in a
> > binary dist is
> > > > > certainly the first step towards getting involved (its on
> > > > my list (o:  )
> > > >
> > > > So you *expect* the /src dir in a binary dist?  That's
> > > > mind-blowing to me.
> > > > If you're interested in TC development, your first thought
> > > > isn't "Time to go
> > > > d/l the src distro" it's "Time to d/l the bin dist so I can
> > > > check out the
> > > > src" ?
> > > >
> > > > I'm not making a huge stand here, I thought bringing up the
> > > > suggestion was
> > > > almost common sense.  It's a "bin" dist, i.e. !(src
> > > > included).  I wouldn't
> > > > expect it to be there <shrug>
> > > >
> > > > - r
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >