Re: [PROPOSAL] Tomcat 4.0-beta API Change: Security ManagerFacades

["Craig R. McClanahan" <Cr...@eng.sun.com>]

Kief Morris wrote:

> Craig R. McClanahan typed the following on 02:59 PM 1/19/2001 -0800
> >> So what do we need a 4.1 branch for then?
> >
> >If we take the action Remy recommends, we won't.  I'm +1 for this
>
> OK, I understand the motivations for this. When/how do you think the
> PersistentManager code I submitted last week should be integrated?
> I hate to put more untried code into 4.0, but I'd really like to see it
> committed somewhere where people can try it and I can build onto
> it. I have a number of things I'd like discuss doing with the session
> classes, like refactoring StandardSession into an abstract class and
> implementing the locking/request completion stuff we've discussed
> here.
>

This one has been troubling me too.

I've been looking through the code and like most of what I see so far, and agree
that we need to be able to experiment with it, but not destabilize the base
release.  In 4.1, this would have been entirely appropriate -- but not really if
we unfreeze 4.0.

How about if we create a branch of 4.0, and I check in these changes on that
branch?  If things work out well, we can merge back to the main branch --
otherwise, wel'll have learned what needs to be done to add this functionality
into 4.1.


> Kief
>

Craig

RE: [PROPOSAL] Tomcat 4.0-beta API Change: Security ManagerFacades

[Marc Saegesser <ma...@apropos.com>]

> From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:Craig.McClanahan@eng.sun.com]
> How about if we create a branch of 4.0, and I check in these 
> changes on that
> branch?  If things work out well, we can merge back to the main branch --
> otherwise, wel'll have learned what needs to be done to add this 
> functionality
> into 4.1.

+1

Re: [PROPOSAL] Tomcat 4.0-beta API Change: Security ManagerFacades

[Kief Morris <ki...@bitbull.com>]

Craig R. McClanahan typed the following on 10:09 PM 1/19/2001 -0800
>How about if we create a branch of 4.0, and I check in these changes on that
>branch?  If things work out well, we can merge back to the main branch --
>otherwise, wel'll have learned what needs to be done to add this functionality
>into 4.1.

+1 This sounds like the right way to do it.

Kief