Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-tomcat-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 72352 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2002 08:14:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 10 Oct 2002 08:14:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 13853 invoked by uid 97); 10 Oct 2002 08:15:42 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 13834 invoked by uid 97); 10 Oct 2002 08:15:41 -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 13821 invoked by uid 98); 10 Oct 2002 08:15:41 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) Message-ID: <3DA537D0.9030702@fujitsu-siemens.com> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:18:24 +0200 From: jean-frederic clere Reply-To: jfrederic.clere@fujitsu-siemens.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020529 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: Re: commons-daemon release ? References: <3DA418A6.1010905@apache.org> <3DA419F7.7050400@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Costin Manolache wrote: > Remy Maucherat wrote: > > >>Henri Gomez wrote: >> >>>I wonder if a release of commons-daemon is planned. >> >>No, because promoting it to commons proper got vetoed. >>At the moment, it looks like a split between daemon and launcher will >>happen. > > > For the record - nobody can 'veto' a promotion to commons > or a release. It is a majority vote. If it gets 3 +1 and > more +1 than -1 - then it'll pass. > > I'm willing to change my vote to -0 if the API is fixed to > not require applications to implement the daemon interfaces > ( I don't like the split init any more than I did - and so > I don't plan to use it any time soon ). I remain -1 on > tomcat having dependecies on daemon, and probably -0 on > bundling daemon with tomcat. > > As I said, for 'chuid' functionality I prefer using a direct > call - I have most of it implemented using jk2, I'll > finish this well before 5.0 is released. I prefer to have a C wrapper that start the JVM and call methods than having the reverse. I have rethinked my position about the need of the daemon interfaces specialy about the controler part and I am ready to +1 for moving the interfaces and replace it a description of methods and classes that would be called/instancied from a native program. But I need time (about 2 weeks). I will try to provide a description of the features I need. > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: