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 17:13:06 GMT
Mladen Turk wrote:

>> We speaked about use of APR in JK2 many times in the past,
>> take a look
>> at tomcat-dev mailing list archive.
> Know that, but often people change opinions, you cannot blame to
> occasionally put that back on ;)

That's right. I totally agree that all new code and features 
should use APR.

But I don't agree ( and I haven't seen any argument/reason ) that
we should drop the non-APR components or we shouldn't allow
a build without APR.

That's pretty simple - the object model doesn't use APR and there's 
no need to ( there's no or minimal platform-specific code in it ).
And the non-apr components are stable and there's no reason to 
change them. Just create new components.

Sometime in future ( say 6 months after jk2.0 release is out ) we
can discuss deprecating the old components and maybe after jk2.1
is released we can discuss removing them for jk2.2.

>> Making APR mandatory for JK2 was never planned for 2.0 but for 2.1,
>> which will be a whole different story.
>> It's really a nightmare to manage 2 differents branches at
>> the same time
> Think you miss me. Things like using APR as mandatory reflects only the
> build procedure, and IMO doesn't require a new branch. I even didn't
> think that 2.1 needs to be a new branch (3.0 perhaps).
> The new branch needs to be technologically different to be a new branch
> thought, and see no reason why the 2.0.3 wouldn't be with the APR
> boundled in.
> But if the rest of community think it does, I'll 'Adopt'.

I don't think APR ( or anything else :-) should be 'mandatory'. 
Recommended - yes, default - yes. But if the 'modularity' and
'component' goals are met, then it should be possible to 
use any kind of components in the system, including those that
don't use APR.
And since we already have a (complete and functional ) set of components
supporting the minimal features ( i.e. basic socket communication ) - 
and most of the code is stable ( as it's very close to jk1.x ), I see
no reason to remove them or to not allow a build with those components only.

If you want cleaner code - just create a new component ( copy the
old one for example ), remove HAVE_APR and make it require APR.

>> I wonder what's the problem using #idef HAVE_APR in JK2 today ?
> None really (except that its messy), but you can find things like that
> even inside the code that can be used only in the APR supported
> connectors. But, as I said, I can Adopt ;)

No problem with removing the mess - in new components that will be default
in 2.1. 


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

View raw message