tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Costin Manolache <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Minimal tomcat ( JSR154 + JSR152 )
Date Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:37:06 GMT
Remy Maucherat wrote:
>> Votes:
>> [ ] +1 I like the idea, I might help
>> [ ] -1 I don't like the idea, I won't help.
> I'll have to vote -1 until the other vote completes, and then, I'll
> either be:
> - +1 if Jon's proposal doesn't pass
> - -1 if Jon proposal is accepted, unless Jasper is removed from the list

I think this is at least unfair.

I started the discussion on "minimal" tomcat before Jon's vote. I was 
trying to get a consensus and opinions to shape the proposal. Jon
jumped in with the vote. I don't think "who proposes the vote first
wins" is the best solution, I don't think we are even talking about the
same thing ( Jon wants a JSR154-only, I'm proposing a minimal tomcat ).

I don't see why a vote on Jon's proposal would affect my proposal 
( or any future vote ). 

> As I said, I'd like to limit to 2 maximum the amount of Tomcat binary
> distributions (I think two is too much, actually, but still is
> acceptable).

Then make a proposal that "maximum 2 tomcat binary distribution should be 
allowed". But even in this case - I think I am allowed to propose that 
one of the distributions ( the small one ) includes jasper runtime and is 
not called "jsr154 only". Even if Jon's vote is passing.

If your -1 vote on "minimal tomcat" ( that includes jasper ) is based 
on concerns that we'll have too many distributions - I agree it's
a valid reason, and I know you don't need a reason to vote -1. 

I have no problem with a vote on "minimal tomcat" to not include
jasper compiler ( or even jasper runtime ) - if this gets a majority
of votes than it can happen. The reverse is a bit more difficult - 
i.e. we can't include jasper in a "JSR154 only" ( as Jon proposed )


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

View raw message