tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <>
Subject RE: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence
Date Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:00:51 GMT

I think a more modular 4.0 would be a step forward - and it 
seems many others agree. But what you are doing is a fork by 
all definitions that I know. 

As I said, I do agree with Remy - if you care about tomcat 
you should 'persist' in pushing for your ideas and find ways to 
work with the rest of us ( instead of forking and 'keeping us
updated of the evolution of the fork' ).

As this thread shows, there is a lot of support for a minimalistic
version of tomcat. Tomcat3.3 already has a target that builds
the 600k-single-jar-no-extra-files version, and nobody complained.   
So I see no reason for a fork ( at least not before you finished
all the options in getting your modules accepted ). You must
at least try first. 

JNDI, JMX,  autodeplyment and a lot of other things are usefull 
and interesting - but as long as you don't brake them I see no 
valid reason for not accepting alternative implementations.
( the same as I wouldn't see any reason for not accepting an 
JNDI or JMX module for 3.3 - as long as we can still build 
a minimal container and the current set of modules remain 
the default ). Maybe not in the main branch, but in a contrib/.
But discussed and accepted on tomcat-dev. 


On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Christopher K.  St.  John wrote:

>  - I did discuss MinTC/MinimalTomcat on the dev list, check the
>    archives. The topic didn't seem very popular, but I took that
>    to mean I had weird requirements that few others shared. Later
>    on, I started making announcements as a way to generate
>    discussion and keep the core developers up-to-date.
>  - It's not a fork. If it were a fork, I wouldn't care about the
>    core code. But it's not, so I do. It's not Tomcat 4, but it
>    is, by any reasonable definition, a version of Catalina.
>  - It was always my intention to propose donating the code back
>    to Apache, I should have been more clear about this. But I
>    wanted to wait for the 1.0 release, for obvious reasons.
>  - MinTC is not competition for Tomcat. You would have to be
>    frigging insane to use MinTC if you could possibly use
>    Tomcat 4 instead. But sometimes Tomcat 4 is difficult or
>    impossible to use. That's not because Tomcat 4 is bad, it's
>    just that it's full featured. I didn't think a patch
>    to remove MBeans, JNDI and auto-deployment from the core
>    would be well received :-) If you're interested, there's
>    more detail on the MinTC page.
>  Thanks for your feedback,

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

View raw message