Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-tomcat-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 75091 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2002 20:04:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Dec 2002 20:04:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 25957 invoked by uid 97); 4 Dec 2002 20:05:31 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 25906 invoked by uid 97); 4 Dec 2002 20:05:30 -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 25894 invoked by uid 98); 4 Dec 2002 20:05:29 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) Message-ID: <3DEE5FC4.8050501@apache.org> Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 21:04:20 +0100 From: Remy Maucherat Organization: ASF User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2) Gecko/20021126 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tomcat Developers List Subject: Re: [RFC] Make jakarta-tomcat-catalina codebase common for both Tomcat 4 and Tomcat 5 References: <3DEE1D8C.4090201@mail.more.net> <3DEE207C.8040506@apache.org> <3DEE27AA.6090801@mail.more.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: localhost.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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: > 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. > > 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. >>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 ;-) Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: