tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeanfrancois Arcand <jfarc...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [RFC] Make jakarta-tomcat-catalina codebase common for both Tomcat 4 and Tomcat 5
Date Wed, 04 Dec 2002 20:31:31 GMT


Remy Maucherat wrote:

> Costin Manolache wrote:
>
>> Glenn Nielsen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Remy Maucherat wrote:
>>>
>>>> Glenn Nielsen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> With Tomcat 4.1 released many tomcat developers have been reticent to
>>>>> add new features
>>>>> to its codebase for a number of reasons.  All the development 
>>>>> going on
>>>>> in Tomcat 5 and
>>>>> wanting to keep the number of codebase's where bug fix patches 
>>>>> have to
>>>>> be applied to a
>>>>> minimum.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are alot of ideas for new features that I would like to see end
>>>>> up in a Tomcat 4.2
>>>>> release. Especially since we don't know when the Servlet 2.4/JSP 2.0
>>>>> specs will be finalized
>>>>> so that Tomcat 5 can be released.
>>>>>
>>>>> There isn't that much difference in the core of catalina between the
>>>>> Servlet 2.3 and
>>>>> Servlet 2.4 specs. It might be possible to change the
>>>>> jakarta-tomcat-catalina codebase
>>>>> to make it neutral to what Servlet spec is implemented.  Then this
>>>>> codebase could be
>>>>> used for future Tomcat 4 and Tomcat 5 development.  And we then 
>>>>> have a
>>>>> common codebase
>>>>> for applying bug fix patches.
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems to fit in with the direction we have been going where
>>>>> different components
>>>>> are kept in different code bases. naming, connectors, jasper, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is hard to do (Catalina has never been written to allow facades).
>>>> Also, for Tomcat 5, j-t-catalina is actually the Servlet 2.4 facade.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Right, I am aware of that. There isn't that much difference between
>>> Servlet 2.3
>>> and Servlet 2.4.  Having a common codebase for both would make 
>>> addition of
>>> new non spec related features easier and bug fix patching easier.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are new methods in interfaces, etc. It won't be easy, I tried 
>> that ( for 2.2/2.3 ).
>>
>> I agree with your idea of having common code between tomcat4 and tomcat5
>> ( and tomcat3 ) - j-t-c is the best place to do that.
>>
>> If we agree on a hook mechanism at coyote level - i.e. move auth* and 
>> other
>> hooks to implement Action or similar interface - then a lot of stuff 
>> can be moved to j-t-c ( or j-t-modules ) and be common. All auth*, 
>> mapping,
>> security - and we already have connectors and Request. 
>
I'm coming, I'm coming with a proposal :-)

>>
>>
>> That will also simplify the codebase in j-t-catalina - i.e. the code 
>> will
>> be more focused on implementing the servlet spec.
>
>
> Yes, probably moving some code would be a nice solution. I'd prefer 
> j-t-modules for that use, personally. 

Euh...I also like the module idea, but I share Remy's view and I doubt 
about having a single o.a.c workspace for all Servlet specs (starting 
2.3 & 2.4). Without facade, I don't see how we can achieve that. I would 
prefer having a shared workspace for everything except stuffs related to 
Servlet. Something like:

o.a.catalina (basic web server stuff)
o.a.catalina.servletEngine (where the Servlet spec is implemented)

or something like that. That probably what Facade means....Maybe I'm 
dreaming ;-). We should really think of having an extension mechanism 
where module can be added easily. The solution resides probably by 
having a consistent hook mechanism...

>
>
>>> There needs to be someplace where new features can be added to the 
>>> Tocmat
>>> 4 branch. You have been against adding new features to Tomcat 4 head,
>>> creating a Tocmat 4.2 branch for developement, and now against making
>>> j-t-catalina common to both Tomcat 4 & 5.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think adding features in j-t-c was allways open, and so will be for
>> a potential j-t-module.
>>
>> The reason for the negative votes on 4.2 was simple - if you find 3 
>> people to vote +1 on 4.2 ( i.e. who are interested in working on it 
>> ), then
>> I don't see any reason not to do it.
>> I can hardly find time to work on 5.0 ( and thanks to Bill I don't 
>> have to
>> worry about 3.3 :-), and we have a lot of stuff on the todo list. That
>> shouldn't stop a 4.2 effort - if it gets at least the minimum 3 
>> committers.
>> I voted -0, I think Remy will change the vote to -0 as well. My -0 
>> means: I don't have time or interest in that, and I would preffer
>> that the features are done in 5.0 - but if 3 committers have this itch
>> I won't stop it.
>
>
> This is a conspiracy ;-) I already voted -0 ;-) 

-0. I would prefer concentrating my works on 5.0 since I don't see a 
major difference between 4.2/5.0.  

-- Jeanfrancois

>
>
> Remy
>
>
> -- 
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> <mailto:tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> <mailto:tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message