You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by Anil Vijendran <An...@eng.sun.com> on 2001/01/16 04:18:39 UTC
[Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]
Jon Stevens wrote:
> on 1/15/01 5:58 PM, "cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The lead developer for Tomcat has disappeared 1 year ago ( from any active
> > development or support in tomcat, he's still around doing other projects
> > ). That's BTW the best prove of a project viability.
>
> Right and you picked it up as your paid job until you were moved to another
> project within Sun. Since you have been so forward today, would you also
> like to expand on why you were switched over to an XML project internally?
You are supposed to be someone holding a position with some level of
responsibility or the other--PMC, member etc etc. Can't you restrain yourself to
things that are germane to this forum and stop acting like a precocious teen on
crack?!
By asking what you did here, what are you trying to get at? That you know a bit
more about what Costin's upto than the rest of the world? That you had bugs
planted in Sun that told you why someone was switched to some other project
internally? You want to wash someone else's linen in public? What the f*ck is
it, really?!
> >> I can't get you and Costin to understand what I'm saying, however, you
> >> understand Hans even though he said nearly the same thing that I have been
> >> saying all along.
> >
> > Than maybe it would be a good idea to shut up and let Hans do the talking?
>
> How should I respond to this, with a comment about your mother or something?
You might have been provoked allright but saying what you do here is nauseating.
What sort of community are you trying to build out here?
Seeing all of this, I don't think I'd be too much off my mark if I suggested
that Jon's indiscipline on the mailing lists be discussed at some level or the
other. The rest of Apache and this PMC keeping quiet on these sorts of
behaviours is only going to exacerbate the notion of the PMC being a clique.
--
Peace, Anil +<:-)
Re: Stop! Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 11:17 PM, "cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'll just set a filter - and I advise you do the same. I'm going to ignore
> any posting Jon does, and I'll avoid any project where he's involved.
Again. More censorship.
-jon
Stop! Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
I guess I owe some apologies to this group for getting into this. I tried
as much as possible to ignore Jon, but it seems I was too weak for that.
I'll just set a filter - and I advise you do the same. I'm going to ignore
any posting Jon does, and I'll avoid any project where he's involved.
Please do the same - it's not worth it.
I'll follow the advices I received so far and I'll go to the
meeting, even if it's the last place I would want to be.
I understand flames happen in open source lists, but there is a limit that
shouldn't be crossed.
--
Costin
Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
Anil. That was a question, not a stated comment about his mother. It was
said in such a way as to show that if I had commented about his mother, it
would be as low as telling someone to shut up.
-jon
on 1/16/01 12:46 AM, "Anil Vijendran" <An...@eng.sun.com> wrote:
> Jon Stevens wrote:
>
>> on 1/15/01 9:51 PM, "Anil Vijendran" <An...@eng.sun.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Talking about someone's mother is just not kosher.
>>
>> I didn't talk about his mother. I'm simply showing the immaturity and
>> rudeness of telling someone to shut up.
>
> What do you mean by "I didn't talk"?? See the following snippet posted by
> yourself: (Let me know if you want me to forward the exact mail...) For all
> the talk you do about read what I wrote carefully you should remember what
> *you* write.
>
>
>>>> I can't get you and Costin to understand what I'm saying, however, you
>>>> understand Hans even though he said nearly the same thing that I have been
>>>> saying all along.
>>>
>>> Than maybe it would be a good idea to shut up and let Hans do the talking?
>>
>> How should I respond to this, with a comment about your mother or something?
>>
>> -jon
>>
> --
> Peace, Anil +<:-)
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
--
Honk if you love peace and quiet.
Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]
Posted by Anil Vijendran <An...@eng.sun.com>.
Jon Stevens wrote:
> on 1/15/01 9:51 PM, "Anil Vijendran" <An...@eng.sun.com> wrote:
>
> > Talking about someone's mother is just not kosher.
>
> I didn't talk about his mother. I'm simply showing the immaturity and
> rudeness of telling someone to shut up.
What do you mean by "I didn't talk"?? See the following snippet posted by
yourself: (Let me know if you want me to forward the exact mail...) For all
the talk you do about read what I wrote carefully you should remember what
*you* write.
> >> I can't get you and Costin to understand what I'm saying, however, you
> >> understand Hans even though he said nearly the same thing that I have been
> >> saying all along.
> >
> > Than maybe it would be a good idea to shut up and let Hans do the talking?
>
> How should I respond to this, with a comment about your mother or something?
>
> -jon
>
--
Peace, Anil +<:-)
Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 9:51 PM, "Anil Vijendran" <An...@eng.sun.com> wrote:
> Talking about someone's mother is just not kosher.
I didn't talk about his mother. I'm simply showing the immaturity and
rudeness of telling someone to shut up.
-jon
Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]
Posted by Anil Vijendran <An...@eng.sun.com>.
Jon Stevens wrote:
> on 1/15/01 7:18 PM, "Anil Vijendran" <An...@eng.sun.com> wrote:
>
> > What the f*ck is it, really?!
>
> The two points I have brought up are:
>
> #1. that Costin didn't make a vote in the ASF because his boss @ Sun didn't
> let him.
> #2. that his employer also tried to pull him off the project by giving him
> something else to do (which seems to have badly backfired).
Irrelevant nonsense! Costin didn't vote, that's relevant. Asking him why (beyond
the direct relevance to Tomcat 3.x or 4.0) and sitting around surmising why he
might not have voted or that his employer didn't let him do something or the other
on public mailing lists is slander.
> "What the fuck is it"; is that much of what goes on behind Sun's closed
> doors is a hell of a lot more closed and affective to this project than what
> we (including yourself) discuss on the PMC list.
Useless and irrelevant rants about Sun etc. Typical of your emails.
> I'm sorry that you couldn't read through the cracks well enough. I hope that
> spells it out more clearly for you.
Spells what?!
> > What sort of community are you trying to build out here?
>
> I really don't understand how you all put up with Costin's FUD and rants
> against Tomcat 4.0 forever now without saying anything and when I speak up
> against continuing Tomcat 3.x indefinitely, suddenly I'm the asshole.
I know you bring up a few valid points. Please stick to it and be sober in your
tone. Talking about someone's mother is just not kosher.
> > Seeing all of this, I don't think I'd be too much off my mark if I suggested
> > that Jon's indiscipline on the mailing lists be discussed at some level or the
> > other. The rest of Apache and this PMC keeping quiet on these sorts of
> > behaviours is only going to exacerbate the notion of the PMC being a clique.
>
> Are you saying that you are pro-censorship? That people are not allowed to
> express their views however they want? I worry for you as well as the PMC.
Gee thanks for worrying about me. After all those insults that you so gratuitously
heap on people, you ought to worry about yourself and go enroll in Manners 101.
When will you ever get a clue?! I'm not talking about censorship here.
I'm talking about how in the future *I* (and others who might not belong to your
clique, or company) can avoid being called names or insulted in some other way by
*you* because we didn't fall in line with your opinions.
> -jon
--
Peace, Anil +<:-)
Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
> Yeah, I've used variations on this pattern to help save architectures
> that were spiralling out of control.
You may also check:
http://jakarta.apache.org/cvsweb/index.cgi/~checkout~/jakarta-tomcat/src/doc/internal.html
( it's not up-to-date, a everything is now much cleaner, and most of the
optimizations have been made )
Another interesting source of information is Apache 1.3 and Apache 2.0,
and the HOOKS mechanism introduced in 2.0.
Tomcat 3.3 is following the same model and direction ( by providing more
hooks and a more flexible mechanism to deal with the chains ).
It should also be noted that 3.3 supports _both_ Valves ( i.e. a chain
on the invoke() hook ) and Apache style hooks ( auth, config, error
handling, mpm, etc ). Of course, most 3.3 modules are using the more
flexible aproach and the specialized chains instead.
You may also note that most web servers ( IIS, NES ) are using the same (
multiple chains ) pattern as Tomcat 3.3.
( the "valve" chain has allways been possible in tomcat3.x, by extending
Handler/ServletWrapper using the same pattern, but never used because of
the belief that Apache2.0 model is better. The reason for exposing it more
in 3.3 is to allow porting of valves - as independent and standalone
modules - from 4.0, i.e. to reuse existing code instead of reinventing it
for some usefull modules )
BTW, the AccessLogValve has already been adapted ( as a 3.3 module), and
will be made available soon ( after I find a place to distribute the
modules out of ). ( I find to be very usefull, and it was the first test
that the 3.3 model works and is flexible enough ).
--
Costin
Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]
Posted by Paul Speed <Pa...@metrixpoint.com>.
"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
>
> Paul Speed wrote:
>
> > cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Can you argue about how Valve's single chain of command ( where
> > > authentication, generation, etc are done in a single invoke() ) can
> > > be better than what all other server are doing ( and Apache 2.0
> > > moves to a different level with the flexible HOOK mechanism ?
> > >
> >
> > Actually, this is a discussion I would like to see happen. I
> > think that I can actually argue for Valves. Admittedly, I know little
> > about the actual implementations but I am very familiar with the
> > patterns used in Tomcat 3.x and Tomcat 4.x and I have seen much of the
> > discussions on this list. However, in other projects I have converted
> > several architectures using patterns similar to 3.x to be more like the
> > Valve approach. We did it to shorten development times and improve
> > developer productivity. Performance wasn't our main goal but in all
> > but one case performance improved.
> >
>
> Valves implement the "Chain of Responsibility" design pattern in the GoF book.
> You will also see a very similar programming model in the way that the
> javax.servlet.Filter APIs are defined in the Servlet Specification, Version 2.3
> Proposed Final Draft -- after wrestling with lots of alternatives, the expert
> group concluded that this was the most appropriate programming model for
> exposing similar functionality at the application level.
Yeah, I've used variations on this pattern to help save architectures
that were spiralling out of control.
>
> >
> > What I would like to see is a frank analysis of this topic.
> > If those "in the know" do not have the time then I will attempt to
> > do a brief analysis myself in the coming weeks. It will take research
> > on my part whereas some of you might know the answers off the top of
> > your head.
> >
>
> I did an analysis on this topic in August, when Catalina was being formally
> proposed -- it is still in the "jakarta-tomcat-4.1" CVS repository as file
> "catalina/docs/filters.html". The comparison was primarily to the way that
> request interceptors were implemented in Tomcat 3.2, so I would suspect that
> there have been some changes since on the HEAD branch -- particularly in the
> last section, where I discuss limitations that are due to the *implementation*
> of request interceptors in Tomcat 3.2, not their *design*. (The Valve APIs have
> not needed to be changed -- they have proven to be entirely sufficient to
> implement the servlet 2.3 spec's functionality requirements :-).
>
> Aside from downloading the 4.1 source repository, this document will also be
> visible though the online CVS web access. Sorry, I'm offline at the moment, so
> I cannot give you a hyperlink, but select the CVSWeb link, module
> "jakarta-tomcat-4.1", directory "catalina", directory "docs", directory "dev",
> and file "filters.html".
Just in case anyone else is interested:
http://jakarta.apache.org/cvsweb/index.cgi/jakarta-tomcat-4.1/catalina/docs/filters.html
>
> >
> > What I intend to compare is the typical method call sequence
> > of the two approaches, including resource allocation if any, when
> > handling various types requests. From there I hope to point to the
> > relative merits and tradeoffs of each approach.
> >
> > I have fun with this kind of stuff... it harkens back to
> > my old graphics programming days. It's almost always surprising
> > what this stuff will turn up.
> >
> > -Paul Speed
> >
>
> I had a Comp Sci prof that made an interesting point -- you only write one real
> program in your life, and then you spend the rest of your career plagarizing
> from it :-)
Ain't it the truth. One thing that was always fun about graphics
programming was that quite often the algorithm that looked least
optimal performed the best. Figuring out why is sometimes it's own
game.
Thanks for the pointer to the doc... it should get me started.
-Paul Speed
Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]
Posted by "Craig R. McClanahan" <Cr...@eng.sun.com>.
Paul Speed wrote:
> cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Can you argue about how Valve's single chain of command ( where
> > authentication, generation, etc are done in a single invoke() ) can
> > be better than what all other server are doing ( and Apache 2.0
> > moves to a different level with the flexible HOOK mechanism ?
> >
>
> Actually, this is a discussion I would like to see happen. I
> think that I can actually argue for Valves. Admittedly, I know little
> about the actual implementations but I am very familiar with the
> patterns used in Tomcat 3.x and Tomcat 4.x and I have seen much of the
> discussions on this list. However, in other projects I have converted
> several architectures using patterns similar to 3.x to be more like the
> Valve approach. We did it to shorten development times and improve
> developer productivity. Performance wasn't our main goal but in all
> but one case performance improved.
>
Valves implement the "Chain of Responsibility" design pattern in the GoF book.
You will also see a very similar programming model in the way that the
javax.servlet.Filter APIs are defined in the Servlet Specification, Version 2.3
Proposed Final Draft -- after wrestling with lots of alternatives, the expert
group concluded that this was the most appropriate programming model for
exposing similar functionality at the application level.
>
> What I would like to see is a frank analysis of this topic.
> If those "in the know" do not have the time then I will attempt to
> do a brief analysis myself in the coming weeks. It will take research
> on my part whereas some of you might know the answers off the top of
> your head.
>
I did an analysis on this topic in August, when Catalina was being formally
proposed -- it is still in the "jakarta-tomcat-4.1" CVS repository as file
"catalina/docs/filters.html". The comparison was primarily to the way that
request interceptors were implemented in Tomcat 3.2, so I would suspect that
there have been some changes since on the HEAD branch -- particularly in the
last section, where I discuss limitations that are due to the *implementation*
of request interceptors in Tomcat 3.2, not their *design*. (The Valve APIs have
not needed to be changed -- they have proven to be entirely sufficient to
implement the servlet 2.3 spec's functionality requirements :-).
Aside from downloading the 4.1 source repository, this document will also be
visible though the online CVS web access. Sorry, I'm offline at the moment, so
I cannot give you a hyperlink, but select the CVSWeb link, module
"jakarta-tomcat-4.1", directory "catalina", directory "docs", directory "dev",
and file "filters.html".
>
> What I intend to compare is the typical method call sequence
> of the two approaches, including resource allocation if any, when
> handling various types requests. From there I hope to point to the
> relative merits and tradeoffs of each approach.
>
> I have fun with this kind of stuff... it harkens back to
> my old graphics programming days. It's almost always surprising
> what this stuff will turn up.
>
> -Paul Speed
>
I had a Comp Sci prof that made an interesting point -- you only write one real
program in your life, and then you spend the rest of your career plagarizing
from it :-)
Craig
Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]
Posted by Hans Bergsten <ha...@gefionsoftware.com>.
Paul Speed wrote:
>
> cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Can you argue about how Valve's single chain of command ( where
> > authentication, generation, etc are done in a single invoke() ) can
> > be better than what all other server are doing ( and Apache 2.0
> > moves to a different level with the flexible HOOK mechanism ?
> >
>
> Actually, this is a discussion I would like to see happen. I
> think that I can actually argue for Valves. Admittedly, I know little
> about the actual implementations but I am very familiar with the
> patterns used in Tomcat 3.x and Tomcat 4.x and I have seen much of the
> discussions on this list. However, in other projects I have converted
> several architectures using patterns similar to 3.x to be more like the
> Valve approach. We did it to shorten development times and improve
> developer productivity. Performance wasn't our main goal but in all
> but one case performance improved.
>
> What I would like to see is a frank analysis of this topic.
> If those "in the know" do not have the time then I will attempt to
> do a brief analysis myself in the coming weeks. It will take research
> on my part whereas some of you might know the answers off the top of
> your head.
>
> What I intend to compare is the typical method call sequence
> of the two approaches, including resource allocation if any, when
> handling various types requests. From there I hope to point to the
> relative merits and tradeoffs of each approach.
>
> I have fun with this kind of stuff... it harkens back to
> my old graphics programming days. It's almost always surprising
> what this stuff will turn up.
You may want to take a look at this:
<http://jakarta.apache.org/cvsweb/index.cgi/jakarta-tomcat-4.0/catalina/docs/Attic/filters.html?rev=1.2&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup>
It's a comparison of the Valve and Interceptor model, written by
Craig some time ago. For some reason it was deleted from the
repository 2 days ago, with the comment "Remove obsolete file",
but I believe it's still valid at least as an overview.
Craig, why did you remove it?
Hans
--
Hans Bergsten hans@gefionsoftware.com
Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com
Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com
Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]
Posted by Paul Speed <Pa...@metrixpoint.com>.
cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Can you argue about how Valve's single chain of command ( where
> authentication, generation, etc are done in a single invoke() ) can
> be better than what all other server are doing ( and Apache 2.0
> moves to a different level with the flexible HOOK mechanism ?
>
Actually, this is a discussion I would like to see happen. I
think that I can actually argue for Valves. Admittedly, I know little
about the actual implementations but I am very familiar with the
patterns used in Tomcat 3.x and Tomcat 4.x and I have seen much of the
discussions on this list. However, in other projects I have converted
several architectures using patterns similar to 3.x to be more like the
Valve approach. We did it to shorten development times and improve
developer productivity. Performance wasn't our main goal but in all
but one case performance improved.
What I would like to see is a frank analysis of this topic.
If those "in the know" do not have the time then I will attempt to
do a brief analysis myself in the coming weeks. It will take research
on my part whereas some of you might know the answers off the top of
your head.
What I intend to compare is the typical method call sequence
of the two approaches, including resource allocation if any, when
handling various types requests. From there I hope to point to the
relative merits and tradeoffs of each approach.
I have fun with this kind of stuff... it harkens back to
my old graphics programming days. It's almost always surprising
what this stuff will turn up.
-Paul Speed
Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
> The two points I have brought up are:
>
> #1. that Costin didn't make a vote in the ASF because his boss @ Sun didn't
> let him.
It's actually Craig that complained to my boss. The rules were that we are
free to work on anything we want in our free time, and that we can
freely express our opinions. At least until Craig started to turn things
into something else.
> #2. that his employer also tried to pull him off the project by giving him
> something else to do (which seems to have badly backfired).
Not quite - the first thing Craig did was to set the rules to "work on
Catalina or go" ( plus some other nice rules I prefer to not remember). I
choosed to go - and I'm very gratefull to my managers for making it quick
and easy. And to be honest I moved to a great project.
Yes, I lost the "be paid to do what you would do in your free time", and I
had double work to do - but it has been fun.
> "What the fuck is it"; is that much of what goes on behind Sun's closed
> doors is a hell of a lot more closed and affective to this project than what
> we (including yourself) discuss on the PMC list.
Guess what - I work on this project as an individual and everyone inside
Sun ( except Craig ) supported that.
In any case, the managers at Sun are way ahead of what this PMC seems to
be doing. Believe me, after the open source experience I've had on
tomcat-dev and the "corporate" experience I had at Sun - most of my
beliefs about open source are shaken. When I started I though open source
is the greatest thing. Now I understand that the people quality matter the
most.
( and BTW, I don't know how it is in your company, but I never worked in
any place where the managers had such a bad communication and secrecy with
their employee as in this open-source project )
> > What sort of community are you trying to build out here?
>
> I really don't understand how you all put up with Costin's FUD and rants
> against Tomcat 4.0 forever now without saying anything and when I speak up
> against continuing Tomcat 3.x indefinitely, suddenly I'm the asshole.
FUD ? Rants ? Well Jon, pick any one - what are the issues where I believe
I'm wrong ?
Can you argue about how Valve's single chain of command ( where
authentication, generation, etc are done in a single invoke() ) can be
better than what all other server are doing ( and Apache 2.0 moves to a
different level with the flexible HOOK mechanism ?
Can you argue about the design of Catalina - and point to the point where
we discussed _any_ of the requirements and design choices ?
Can you argue about the ammount of public discussion during the 4.0 ?
Or about the number of interfaces needed to do anything ?
( or has been any of this discussed and decided ? )
Which is the FUD ?
--
Costin
Re: [Fwd: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info]
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 7:18 PM, "Anil Vijendran" <An...@eng.sun.com> wrote:
> What the f*ck is it, really?!
The two points I have brought up are:
#1. that Costin didn't make a vote in the ASF because his boss @ Sun didn't
let him.
#2. that his employer also tried to pull him off the project by giving him
something else to do (which seems to have badly backfired).
"What the fuck is it"; is that much of what goes on behind Sun's closed
doors is a hell of a lot more closed and affective to this project than what
we (including yourself) discuss on the PMC list.
I'm sorry that you couldn't read through the cracks well enough. I hope that
spells it out more clearly for you.
> What sort of community are you trying to build out here?
I really don't understand how you all put up with Costin's FUD and rants
against Tomcat 4.0 forever now without saying anything and when I speak up
against continuing Tomcat 3.x indefinitely, suddenly I'm the asshole.
> Seeing all of this, I don't think I'd be too much off my mark if I suggested
> that Jon's indiscipline on the mailing lists be discussed at some level or the
> other. The rest of Apache and this PMC keeping quiet on these sorts of
> behaviours is only going to exacerbate the notion of the PMC being a clique.
Are you saying that you are pro-censorship? That people are not allowed to
express their views however they want? I worry for you as well as the PMC.
-jon