tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Costin Manolache <>
Subject RE: [VOTE] JK2 2.1
Date Tue, 01 Oct 2002 17:03:24 GMT
IMO: one of the main goals of jk2 was modularity, i.e. jk2
is composed of components, each component can use and do whatever
it likes without affecting the other components.

I totally agree that jk2.1 should use APR ( I'll send my vote on
each point ) - but I don't think the old code should be removed
yet - there's no reason.

The only problem is that we'll have to maintain 2 versions - the
APR one and the old/original component. But that's a good thing IMO - 
the old one is already stable and shouldn't be changed except for 
bug fixes ( in the same way important bug fixes are backported from
tomcat5 to 4.1 or from 4.1 to 4.0 ).

I am +1 on creating a separate target/makefiles that will exclude
the 'old'/non-apr components, or changing the code so that the 
APR components will be used by default in 2.1. 

I see no reason to remove components that work well and are tested.

And a branch shouldn't be needed - it should be perfectly possible
to do whatever we want in the new components. The only thing
that needs to be stable for that ( or change in all components ) is
the 'object model' ( including configuration, factories, etc ).

Right now I'm convinced that a future version of jk2 should either
switch to or provide support for NSCOM and COM. Most likely this
should be done on top, i.e. add an IDL and a COM factory for each
component and use some conditional compilation to make sure that
each jk component is compiled as COM on windows, NSCOM if mozilla
COM is available ( i.e. on unix ). The only thing that I still need
to check is if it is possible to also hook into gnome or kde 
object models. 


Mladen Turk wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ignacio J. Ortega
>> And i agree with Henri also ( and i dont understand your
>> "writing it twice" argument ) that to open a Branch right
>> now, is another development nightmare..
> Well, didn't think that it would require a new branch.
> Ok, can we at least agree to the following.
> 1. Apache2 uses APR
> 2. IIS uses APR
> 3. Apache1 can use the APR.
> Or to be specific:
> There is only one build configuration right now that doesn't necessary
> need the APR, but is crippled to use only the socket connector.
> My question is that make sense?
> You may name the version whatever you like 2.1.0 or 2.0.1, doesn't
> matter at all to me, but simply drop the option to build without APR.
> Would It be such a big step forward to open a new branch, I don't think
> so.
> MT.


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

View raw message