Confusion around tcnative

[Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>]

I'm a bit confused about tcnative and the various trunks and branches:

1) tcnative trunk vs. branch 1.1.x.

It seems most updates are directly done to the branch. So trunk is
outdated. On the other hand originally there were some updates to trunk
not in 1.1.x. I think this should be cleaned up. The current trunk
doesn't seem to be useful.

2) tcnative and Java classes

We still have Java classes in the tcnative branch. They neither match
with the copies maintained in the tc7 branch, nor with the ones in the
tc trunk branch. tcnative trunk does not have the Java files.

Is there any use for the copies of the Java files in the tcnative 1.1.x
branch? Otherwise I think we should remov them and check them out from
TC7 or TC trunk when rolling a tcnative release.

Note that tcnative also contains test and examples Java classes, which
are *not* also in the TC branches. Those must be kept in tcnative (or
moved to TC).

Regards,

Rainer

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

Re: Confusion around tcnative

[Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>]

On 01/28/2013 01:45 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 28.01.2013 13:33, Mladen Turk wrote:
>> On 01/28/2013 12:20 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>> I'm a bit confused about tcnative and the various trunks and branches:
>>>
>>> 1) tcnative trunk vs. branch 1.1.x.
>>>
>>> It seems most updates are directly done to the branch. So trunk is
>>> outdated. On the other hand originally there were some updates to trunk
>>> not in 1.1.x. I think this should be cleaned up. The current trunk
>>> doesn't seem to be useful.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>> Trunk should be used for 1.2 and not backward compatible.
>> I plan to add different polling mechanism using interrupts instead
>> timeout polling (one of the reasons why split was made).
>> This is now possible with APR_WAKEABLE pollsets.
>> It would require rewriting Java part as well.
>
> But how do we clean up trunk? Throw away and start from new?

Well, not sure how much stuff was added directly to trunk which
is specific to trunk only. IMO Charles added few bits, but other
then that it's just copying over from 1.1 branch.


Regards
-- 
^TM

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

Re: Confusion around tcnative

[Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>]

On 28.01.2013 13:33, Mladen Turk wrote:
> On 01/28/2013 12:20 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> I'm a bit confused about tcnative and the various trunks and branches:
>>
>> 1) tcnative trunk vs. branch 1.1.x.
>>
>> It seems most updates are directly done to the branch. So trunk is
>> outdated. On the other hand originally there were some updates to trunk
>> not in 1.1.x. I think this should be cleaned up. The current trunk
>> doesn't seem to be useful.
>>
> 
> Agreed.
> Trunk should be used for 1.2 and not backward compatible.
> I plan to add different polling mechanism using interrupts instead
> timeout polling (one of the reasons why split was made).
> This is now possible with APR_WAKEABLE pollsets.
> It would require rewriting Java part as well.

But how do we clean up trunk? Throw away and start from new? I think
currently trunk misses things which are in the 1.1 branch, so building
something on top of the current trunk will be troublesome.

> Initial plan was to finish that for Tomcat8, but not sure how
> much time we still have before 8 gets released.

Regards,

Rainer


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

Re: Confusion around tcnative

[Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>]

On 01/28/2013 12:20 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> I'm a bit confused about tcnative and the various trunks and branches:
>
> 1) tcnative trunk vs. branch 1.1.x.
>
> It seems most updates are directly done to the branch. So trunk is
> outdated. On the other hand originally there were some updates to trunk
> not in 1.1.x. I think this should be cleaned up. The current trunk
> doesn't seem to be useful.
>

Agreed.
Trunk should be used for 1.2 and not backward compatible.
I plan to add different polling mechanism using interrupts instead
timeout polling (one of the reasons why split was made).
This is now possible with APR_WAKEABLE pollsets.
It would require rewriting Java part as well.

Initial plan was to finish that for Tomcat8, but not sure how
much time we still have before 8 gets released.



Regards
-- 
^TM

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

Re: Confusion around tcnative

[Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>]

Rainer,

On 1/28/13 6:20 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> I'm a bit confused about tcnative and the various trunks and branches:
> 
> 1) tcnative trunk vs. branch 1.1.x.
> 
> It seems most updates are directly done to the branch. So trunk is
> outdated. On the other hand originally there were some updates to trunk
> not in 1.1.x. I think this should be cleaned up. The current trunk
> doesn't seem to be useful.

I've tried to always commit to trunk and back-port to 1.1.x. I have had
some irritation building trunk because it requires bleeding-edge
versions of APR that I don't have available from Debian. It's a minor
inconvenience, honestly.

trunk 'configure' also does not properly support --with-java or
--with-java-home like 1.1.x does. That would be helpful to fix... my
configure-fu is not strong.

> 2) tcnative and Java classes
> 
> We still have Java classes in the tcnative branch. They neither match
> with the copies maintained in the tc7 branch, nor with the ones in the
> tc trunk branch. tcnative trunk does not have the Java files.

+1 to removing the Java sources from tcnative in 1.1.x branch. We have
had at least one recent report on the users' list where someone
hand-compiled the Java sources and was then unable to use tcnative
successfully (because the Java sources were out of date with respect to
those in the main Tomcat sources).

> Is there any use for the copies of the Java files in the tcnative 1.1.x
> branch? Otherwise I think we should remov them and check them out from
> TC7 or TC trunk when rolling a tcnative release.

I'm not even sure that a tcnative release requires any .class or .jar
files, as Tomcat itself contains everything necessary. I believe they
are tightly-coupled enough with the rest of Tomcat that shipping a JAR
file along with the tcnative library might break installations with
mismatched Java code accompanying the native stuff.

> Note that tcnative also contains test and examples Java classes, which
> are *not* also in the TC branches. Those must be kept in tcnative (or
> moved to TC).

+1 to moving/adapting to Tomcat.

-chris