tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: jakarta-tomcat-4.0/catalina/src/share/org/apache/catalina
Date Fri, 09 Nov 2001 23:34:49 GMT
On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Remy Maucherat wrote:

> > The problem is SocketFactory - if you know any way to fix jk or webapp to
> > compile and work with both 4.1 and 4.0 ( which is what 'backward
> > compatibility' should provide ) - please let me know :-)
> Hey, you're the one who screamed that the API was totally broken because of this.

The problem was that the API interfaces had dependencies to all the
implementation classes.

SocketFactory was not the major problem ( since it doesn't have further
dependencies ), but the dependency on core/ which containted many
implementation classes and depended on almost everything else.

Having a clean separation between API and implementation is generally a
good thing - and a good reason to scream :-)

> I suggest we do what we always do: create a branch for 4.0.

That's what we do right now ( well, there is no branch since
almost everyone is using jk with 4.0 or 3.3 ).

> Yes, but Craig said that he didn't have time to do that. Which is
> reasonable.
> If Craig wants to develop something that adds some useful functionality, and
> that he does it, I don't see how you can veto it. You can do something
> better, and then call for a vote to throw out Craig's inferior solution.
> > But that's nothing compared with the fact that none of this was discussed.
> I think he did post quite a few proposals on the subject (and they were
> ignored - ie, silently approved).
> > If nobody comments on a proposal it doesn't mean unanimous aproval, but
> > lack of interest - which is a good sign something is wrong.
> That's not what the rules say. You're supposed to give your opinion when
> asked to do so, or lose possibility to do so in the future (otherwise,
> nothing gets done).

I'm totally confused by this rules.

Well, I'm not an expert in rules - if people are comfortable with this
interpretation and with the lack of discussion and communication on
than so be it.

This doesn't sound too good to me - major things should be
discussed, and proposals that raise no interest should be
rejected. That's how I think the rule should be - but it seems
I'm on minority.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message