Preparing the javax.servlet release

[Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>]

Hi,

I just looked into javax.servlet module in order to have a first 1.0.0
release. I fixed the dependencies to released versions and compared the
result. They are identical, so we *could* release javax.servlet.

The only missing things are the notice and licence files. Any suggestion
on these onese?

Carsten
-- 
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org

Re: Preparing the javax.servlet release

[Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>]

On Jan 4, 2008 3:36 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> > I think the problem comes from the spec requiring servlet 2.3.
> >
> Yes, and actually the spec requires 2.1

OK apologies for the noise.

Niall

> Carsten

Re: Preparing the javax.servlet release

[Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>]

Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> I think the problem comes from the spec requiring servlet 2.3.
> 
Yes, and actually the spec requires 2.1

Carsten



-- 
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org

Re: Preparing the javax.servlet release

[Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>]

I think the problem comes from the spec requiring servlet 2.3.

FYI, the latest release of geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec is already a bundle.

On Jan 4, 2008 3:52 PM, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 4, 2008 1:38 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just looked into javax.servlet module in order to have a first 1.0.0
> > release. I fixed the dependencies to released versions and compared the
> > result. They are identical, so we *could* release javax.servlet.
> >
> > The only missing things are the notice and licence files. Any suggestion
> > on these onese?
>
> Apologies as I don't know the history and may say something stupid,
> but I'm wondering why you have a servlet implementation in your
> repository? Wouldn't it be better to do what you have done with
> Commons and just re-package an existing open source implementation
> such as Tomcat or Geronimo? As well as not maintaining/duplicating
> code here you can then just take the lead from their notice and
> license files.
>
> Tomcat 5.x[1] is for Servlet 2.4 and Tomcat 6.x[2] is for Servlet 2.5.
> I believe that the only reason that Geronimo has its own Servlet
> 2.4[3] and Servlet 2.5[5] implementations was because until May 2007
> the Tomcat ones were not available in the maven repo[5].
>
> Niall
>
> [1] http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/tomcat/servlet-api/
> [2] http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/tomcat/servlet-api/
> [3]
> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-servlet_2.4_spec/
> [4]
> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec/
> [5] http://tomcat.markmail.org/message/nifgzhutp2sblzvn
> > Carsten
>



-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/

Re: Preparing the javax.servlet release

[Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>]

On Jan 4, 2008 3:21 PM, Lucas Galfaso <lg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Apologies as I don't know the history and may say something stupid,
> > but I'm wondering why you have a servlet implementation in your
> > repository? Wouldn't it be better to do what you have done with
> > Commons and just re-package an existing open source implementation
> > such as Tomcat or Geronimo? As well as not maintaining/duplicating
> > code here you can then just take the lead from their notice and
> > license files.
>
> This is not an implementation, just the interfaces. Anyhow Felix does
> provide an implementation and it is based on Jetty (but this is not
> the bundle from the original mail in question.)

My use of implementation was confusing - but the links I posted
pointed to the Servlet API jars which is what felix has (and they're
not just interfaces) - anyway Carsten pointing out it requires Servlet
2.1 which (I assume) is not available anywhere at the ASF explains why
its here in felix.

Niall

> Lucas
>
> > Niall

Re: Preparing the javax.servlet release

[Lucas Galfaso <lg...@gmail.com>]

> Apologies as I don't know the history and may say something stupid,
> but I'm wondering why you have a servlet implementation in your
> repository? Wouldn't it be better to do what you have done with
> Commons and just re-package an existing open source implementation
> such as Tomcat or Geronimo? As well as not maintaining/duplicating
> code here you can then just take the lead from their notice and
> license files.

This is not an implementation, just the interfaces. Anyhow Felix does
provide an implementation and it is based on Jetty (but this is not
the bundle from the original mail in question.)

Lucas

> Niall

Re: Preparing the javax.servlet release

[Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>]

On Jan 4, 2008 1:38 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just looked into javax.servlet module in order to have a first 1.0.0
> release. I fixed the dependencies to released versions and compared the
> result. They are identical, so we *could* release javax.servlet.
>
> The only missing things are the notice and licence files. Any suggestion
> on these onese?

Apologies as I don't know the history and may say something stupid,
but I'm wondering why you have a servlet implementation in your
repository? Wouldn't it be better to do what you have done with
Commons and just re-package an existing open source implementation
such as Tomcat or Geronimo? As well as not maintaining/duplicating
code here you can then just take the lead from their notice and
license files.

Tomcat 5.x[1] is for Servlet 2.4 and Tomcat 6.x[2] is for Servlet 2.5.
I believe that the only reason that Geronimo has its own Servlet
2.4[3] and Servlet 2.5[5] implementations was because until May 2007
the Tomcat ones were not available in the maven repo[5].

Niall

[1] http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/tomcat/servlet-api/
[2] http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/tomcat/servlet-api/
[3] http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-servlet_2.4_spec/
[4] http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-servlet_2.5_spec/
[5] http://tomcat.markmail.org/message/nifgzhutp2sblzvn
> Carsten

Re: Preparing the javax.servlet release

[Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>]

Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just looked into javax.servlet module in order to have a first 1.0.0
>> release. I fixed the dependencies to released versions and compared the
>> result. They are identical, so we *could* release javax.servlet.
>>
>> The only missing things are the notice and licence files. Any suggestion
>> on these onese?
>>   
> 
> This was one of the issues, although I am not sure why it is an issue,
> but it was raised by someone a long time ago in incubation.
> 
> BJ Hargrave donated this code, which he said was just a hacked version
> of some Tomcat code downgraded to servlet 2.1. 
Ah, ok.

> So, from my point of view
> we shouldn't have any issues here, but someone thought there was...I
> can't remember off hand.
> 
Yes, I have the same problem :)


> At any rate, I think it should just be Apache licensed and Apache
> copyrighted in the notice file.
Yes, I think this should be enough. I'll add the files and assemble the
release next week unless "the person who thought that there are issues"
speaks up of course.


Thanks
Carsten
-- 
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org

Re: Preparing the javax.servlet release

["Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>]

Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just looked into javax.servlet module in order to have a first 1.0.0
> release. I fixed the dependencies to released versions and compared the
> result. They are identical, so we *could* release javax.servlet.
>
> The only missing things are the notice and licence files. Any suggestion
> on these onese?
>   

This was one of the issues, although I am not sure why it is an issue, 
but it was raised by someone a long time ago in incubation.

BJ Hargrave donated this code, which he said was just a hacked version 
of some Tomcat code downgraded to servlet 2.1. So, from my point of view 
we shouldn't have any issues here, but someone thought there was...I 
can't remember off hand.

At any rate, I think it should just be Apache licensed and Apache 
copyrighted in the notice file.

-> richard