You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by Bill Barker <wb...@wilshire.com> on 2003/01/18 06:12:59 UTC
[VOTE] Branch j-t-c for Tomcat 5
I, personally, think that it's time for a branch in j-t-c. At this point,
even Tomcat 3.3 won't build against the HEAD.
My proposal is: Revert the JMX dependencies in j-t-c, Create a branch (e.g.
coyote_10), and re-apply the JMX patches to the HEAD branch. Tomcat 3.3 and
Tomcat 4.1 will use the coyote_10 branch, and Tomcat 5 will use the HEAD.
<ballot>
[ ] +1 I Support the idea of a branch, and will help maintain it.
[ ] +0 I like the idea
[ ] -0 I don't like the idea
[ ] -1 I'm against the idea of branching
</ballot>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] Branch j-t-c for Tomcat 5
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
Glenn Nielsen wrote:
> Why is it not possible to add (optional) JMX support to j-t-c components so
> that we don't have to branch?
>
> I did not say anything about 4.1, just that I feel it is preferable to not
> have to maintain two j-t-c code bases.
You can't have everything JMX being optional, it would be just a big
mess. Plus, for some changes, it's impossible.
>>> I am a huge +1 on using JMX to capture runtime monitoring data,
>>> but -1 on having two branches to maintain in j-t-c.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think this is a majority vote. Besides, it was agreed on before that
>> a branch would be created in j-t-c.
>>
>
> Please point me at the previous vote. If we voted and approved branching
> j-t-c
> previously why wasn't it branched then and why are we voting again?
There was no vote, but it was mentioned in Costin's posts (or the
replies), when talking about changing Coyote API to something JMX.
The added development overhead is small, and I feel it is needed to keep
the 4.1.x tree stable.
Remy
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] Branch j-t-c for Tomcat 5
Posted by Costin Manolache <cm...@yahoo.com>.
Glenn Nielsen wrote:
>>> Before branching and having to maintain patches in two branches,
>>> why not try to fix the builds and/or change the implemenation of the
>>> additional JMX support so that it can be built optionally.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but this is not possible, and I will *not* include these changes
>> in 4.1.x, at least not for now.
>
> Why is it not possible to add (optional) JMX support to j-t-c components
> so that we don't have to branch?
Because optional JMX is going to be too painfull and limit a lot of what
we can do ( or make it much more complex than it needs to be ).
I'll remove JMX from util - that can be easily avoided. 3.3 and 4.0
have their own http and ajp connectors.
> I did not say anything about 4.1, just that I feel it is preferable to not
> have to maintain two j-t-c code bases.
I agree - but if the cost is making the code too convoluted and use only a
small subset of JMX - I think it's better to branch.
Registration can be wrapped ( easily ). Notifications and use of
MBeanRegistration are hard to wrap.
>From a different perspective - even if j-t-c is branched, it should be
possible to use either branch in any tomcat - if you have JMX, you can
use HEAD with 3.3 or 4.1.
Costin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] Branch j-t-c for Tomcat 5
Posted by Glenn Nielsen <gl...@mail.more.net>.
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> Glenn Nielsen wrote:
>
>> Bill Barker wrote:
>>
>>> <ballot>
>>> [ ] +1 I Support the idea of a branch, and will help maintain it.
>>> [ ] +0 I like the idea
>>> [ ] -0 I don't like the idea
>>> [X] -1 I'm against the idea of branching
>>> </ballot>
>>>
>>
>> Before branching and having to maintain patches in two branches,
>> why not try to fix the builds and/or change the implemenation of the
>> additional JMX support so that it can be built optionally.
>
>
> Sorry, but this is not possible, and I will *not* include these changes
> in 4.1.x, at least not for now.
Why is it not possible to add (optional) JMX support to j-t-c components so
that we don't have to branch?
I did not say anything about 4.1, just that I feel it is preferable to not
have to maintain two j-t-c code bases.
>
>> I am a huge +1 on using JMX to capture runtime monitoring data,
>> but -1 on having two branches to maintain in j-t-c.
>
>
> I think this is a majority vote. Besides, it was agreed on before that a
> branch would be created in j-t-c.
>
Please point me at the previous vote. If we voted and approved branching j-t-c
previously why wasn't it branched then and why are we voting again?
Regards,
Glenn
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] Branch j-t-c for Tomcat 5
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
Glenn Nielsen wrote:
> Bill Barker wrote:
>
>> <ballot>
>> [ ] +1 I Support the idea of a branch, and will help maintain it.
>> [ ] +0 I like the idea
>> [ ] -0 I don't like the idea
>> [X] -1 I'm against the idea of branching
>> </ballot>
>>
>
> Before branching and having to maintain patches in two branches,
> why not try to fix the builds and/or change the implemenation of the
> additional JMX support so that it can be built optionally.
Sorry, but this is not possible, and I will *not* include these changes
in 4.1.x, at least not for now.
> I am a huge +1 on using JMX to capture runtime monitoring data,
> but -1 on having two branches to maintain in j-t-c.
I think this is a majority vote. Besides, it was agreed on before that a
branch would be created in j-t-c.
Remy
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] Branch j-t-c for Tomcat 5
Posted by Glenn Nielsen <gl...@mail.more.net>.
Glenn Nielsen wrote:
> Bill Barker wrote:
>
>> I, personally, think that it's time for a branch in j-t-c. At this
>> point,
>> even Tomcat 3.3 won't build against the HEAD.
>>
>> My proposal is: Revert the JMX dependencies in j-t-c, Create a branch
>> (e.g.
>> coyote_10), and re-apply the JMX patches to the HEAD branch. Tomcat
>> 3.3 and
>> Tomcat 4.1 will use the coyote_10 branch, and Tomcat 5 will use the HEAD.
>>
>> <ballot>
>> [ ] +1 I Support the idea of a branch, and will help maintain it.
>> [X] +0 I like the idea
>> [ ] -0 I don't like the idea
>> [ ] -1 I'm against the idea of branching
>> </ballot>
>>
>
Ok, after some more explanation (Thanks Remy & Costin) I will change my vote to +0.
Glenn
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] Branch j-t-c for Tomcat 5
Posted by Glenn Nielsen <gl...@mail.more.net>.
Bill Barker wrote:
> I, personally, think that it's time for a branch in j-t-c. At this point,
> even Tomcat 3.3 won't build against the HEAD.
>
> My proposal is: Revert the JMX dependencies in j-t-c, Create a branch (e.g.
> coyote_10), and re-apply the JMX patches to the HEAD branch. Tomcat 3.3 and
> Tomcat 4.1 will use the coyote_10 branch, and Tomcat 5 will use the HEAD.
>
> <ballot>
> [ ] +1 I Support the idea of a branch, and will help maintain it.
> [ ] +0 I like the idea
> [ ] -0 I don't like the idea
> [X] -1 I'm against the idea of branching
> </ballot>
>
Before branching and having to maintain patches in two branches,
why not try to fix the builds and/or change the implemenation of the
additional JMX support so that it can be built optionally.
I am a huge +1 on using JMX to capture runtime monitoring data,
but -1 on having two branches to maintain in j-t-c.
Glenn
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Object Pooling(especially database conn)
Posted by Paul Yunusov <py...@rogers.com>.
On Saturday 18 January 2003 06:41 am, White Knight wrote:
> Hi,
> I feel providing Object Pooling ability to tomcat would be very useful.
> Database connection pooling would be very useful for a lot of users.
> I have been doing it as a separate component.I wrote for my purpose and
> bundled with the tomcat my folks are using.I have used the Object pooling
> facility in commons library.
>
> Wouldn't it be nice to make such a thing standard?
>
> Hope to hear your opinions.
Try
ls $CATALINA_HOME/common/lib/*pool*
ls $CATALINA_HOME/common/lib/*dbcp*
and look at
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=tomcat-user&m=102225547106556&w=2
or similar messages,
or I don't exactly understand you.
Paul
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Object Pooling(especially database conn)
Posted by White Knight <wh...@yahoo.com>.
Hi,
I feel providing Object Pooling ability to tomcat would be very useful.
Database connection pooling would be very useful for a lot of users.
I have been doing it as a separate component.I wrote for my purpose and bundled with the tomcat my folks are using.I have used the Object pooling facility in commons library.
Wouldn't it be nice to make such a thing standard?
Hope to hear your opinions.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Re: [VOTE] Branch j-t-c for Tomcat 5
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
Costin Manolache wrote:
> Bill Barker wrote:
>
>
>>I, personally, think that it's time for a branch in j-t-c. At this point,
>>even Tomcat 3.3 won't build against the HEAD.
>>
>>My proposal is: Revert the JMX dependencies in j-t-c, Create a branch
>>(e.g.
>>coyote_10), and re-apply the JMX patches to the HEAD branch. Tomcat 3.3
>>and Tomcat 4.1 will use the coyote_10 branch, and Tomcat 5 will use the
>>HEAD.
>><ballot>
>>[X] +1 I Support the idea of a branch, and will help maintain it.
>>[ ] +0 I like the idea
>>[ ] -0 I don't like the idea
>>[ ] -1 I'm against the idea of branching
>></ballot>
>
>
> We can branch at tomcat_4_19 tag - that's the simplest solution.
>
> Sorry for the mess - but I think the benefits of knowing what happens
> inside tomcat are worth the extra dependencies and some temporary build
> problems ( and an extra branch ).
+1 for branching based on the TOMCAT_4_1_19 tag. That's what I was going
to propose anyway.
Indeed, one of the biggest problems in Tomcat 4.1.x is there are no
monitoring capabilities at all (except doing a thread dump, I guess ;-) ).
Remy
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] Branch j-t-c for Tomcat 5
Posted by Costin Manolache <cm...@yahoo.com>.
Bill Barker wrote:
> I, personally, think that it's time for a branch in j-t-c. At this point,
> even Tomcat 3.3 won't build against the HEAD.
>
> My proposal is: Revert the JMX dependencies in j-t-c, Create a branch
> (e.g.
> coyote_10), and re-apply the JMX patches to the HEAD branch. Tomcat 3.3
> and Tomcat 4.1 will use the coyote_10 branch, and Tomcat 5 will use the
> HEAD.
> <ballot>
> [X] +1 I Support the idea of a branch, and will help maintain it.
> [ ] +0 I like the idea
> [ ] -0 I don't like the idea
> [ ] -1 I'm against the idea of branching
> </ballot>
We can branch at tomcat_4_19 tag - that's the simplest solution.
Sorry for the mess - but I think the benefits of knowing what happens
inside tomcat are worth the extra dependencies and some temporary build
problems ( and an extra branch ).
Costin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] Branch j-t-c for Tomcat 5
Posted by Jeanfrancois Arcand <jf...@apache.org>.
A little late :-)
>
><ballot>
>[ ] +1 I Support the idea of a branch, and will help maintain it.
>[X ] +0 I like the idea
>[ ] -0 I don't like the idea
>[ ] -1 I'm against the idea of branching
></ballot>
>
>
-- Jeanfrancois
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>