Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-tomcat-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 60812 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2002 13:57:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Apr 2002 13:57:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 12683 invoked by uid 97); 19 Apr 2002 13:57:25 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 12584 invoked by uid 97); 19 Apr 2002 13:57:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Tomcat Developers List" Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 12494 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2002 13:57:24 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 15:57:39 +0200 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: MinTC, "terrible rudeness", persistence Thread-Index: AcHnoM15hq/TOFIbQgq6DL/2FcRXXQAAELWg From: "GOMEZ Henri" To: "Tomcat Developers List" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N >>> The only problem I see, is NOT discussing MinTC issues on=20 >tomcat-dev - >I wholeheartedly agree with this. MinTC issues are not discussed around >here, while I would love to follow its development (darn, not=20 >enough time?). MinTC is an excellent idea but since it's not an Apache project, should it be discussed (more) here ?=20 Solution could be : - host MinTC in SF. - add MinTC as a tomcat 4 subproject and host here in Apache >Actually, I do care _more_ about MinTC than even Tomcat=20 >itself, as the "new >features" of 4.0 (and 4.next) are really something I could care less. Having MinTC included in TC 4.x could help add a new target to TC 4, the embedded market. Did there is a reason against adding it to CVS=20 if Christopher agree. It will be in sync with HEAD, use gump, give ideas which could make a better TC 4.1 or 5.0.... =20 >On this same thread, I don't see many issues related to Tomcat itself >discussed on this list (sometimes I do post about some, but it _really_ >looks like that my posts are redirected to /dev/null - for=20 >instance, see my >post about extension-case matching on MacOS/X... NOONE=20 >replied, not even >cared to ask "Since you run OS/X everywhere, can you find a=20 >fix" or some >things like that. Do you remember what you say yesterday about platform problems ?) >> I will veto this (or vote against, if it's a majority vote).=20 >It has been >> very clear for a while that the Tomcat project has to=20 >provide one and only >> one servlet container for a particular version of the specifications. Yes, and now that TC 3.3 and 4.0 people share effort, jasper/connector, it will be better to see something like MinTC included in maybe it's own tomcat subproject, the goal a minimalistic 2.3/1.2 servlet = implementation using TC 4.x .... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: