tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Barker" <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] 5.0.9 stability rating
Date Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:37:23 GMT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Remy Maucherat" <>
To: "Tomcat Developers List" <>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] 5.0.9 stability rating

> Bill Barker wrote:
> >>Tim Funk wrote:
> >>
> >>>Installed 5.0.9 from exe (win2k)
> >>>1) startup.bat worked fine, but the icon which calls tomcatw.exe"
> >>>//GT//Tomcat5 fails will some "Current Thread not owner error"
> >>>2) Race conditions and connection handling in JDBCRealm - plus a whole
> >>>host of other JDBCRealm bugs in Bugzilla applicable to 4 and 5. I hope
> >>>early next week to have a patch which will close many of the JDBCRealm
> >>>bugs.
> >>>3) Need to reinvestigate the JNDIRealm bug reopened.
> >>>
> >>>For the first error - I am sure I just need to look through bugzilla,
> >>>the archives and just need to add something to the README.  (User
> >>
> >>This works for me, Bill, and presumably others. There are reports on
> >>tomcatw in BZ, so it must be at least an uncommon error (given the code
> >>have stayed stable for a few releases). Even if the bug is mildly
> >>common, the old shell scripts are still there. I can put a note stating
> >>that they can be used in case the new .exe wrapper somehow fails.
> >>
> >>I'm staying by my "beta" rating. Again, we cannot continue releasing
> >>alphas just because there could be some non obvious bugs in the build.
> >>In the current system, the period before the vote is meant to check if
> >>there are no showstoppers. If the build is mostly clean, it must be a
> >>beta, otherwise, it merely delays wider testing and finding bugs, which
> >>is *bad*.
> >
> > Ok.  I'm willing to vote for a (weak) Beta in exchange for a
> > that Tomcat doesn't implement the current-draft's Authentication
> > requirements.
> What is your plan, BTW ? Wait a bit more for the deadline to see what
> the final specification will say ? (IMO, the old auth matching rules
> were not very good)

I was hoping for a pfd4, but it doesn't look like it's coming out anytime
soon :-(.  It's a pretty big change to conform to pfd3 (which is a
completely nonsensical requirement :), so I was playing the wait-and-see
game.  Of course, I'm more than happy to do the grunt work to bring Tomcat
into compliance with pfd3.  However, if the spec changes to something
sensible, then that means two big (e.g. changing interfaces in o.a.c) API

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

View raw message