You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by "Peter V. Gadjokov" <pv...@c-c-s.com> on 2000/09/12 05:50:28 UTC
RE: Case Sensitivity in URLs (was RE: BugRat Report #92 was close
d(apparently by: Craig R.)
>Not just my opinion. Putting the onus on me to prove why it's a
>hack doesn't chage the fact that it's a hack.
You're the one calling it a hack, the onus is indeed on you. It is
reasonable, in technical communication, to expect participants to
justify their statements, whether these are purely their opnion or
a combination of their and other's opinions. And I think it's also
perfectly reasonable for me to say 'your view it's a hack is no
reason not to implement it'. I happen to think Servlets and HTTP
itself hacks. I still find lots of use for them and the packages
that have undertaken the laborious task of implementing them.
"It's a hack!", whether true or not, whether universally
acknowledged or not, is almost entirely irrelevant in this case
but I'm happy to hear your views _just in case_ they contain
something that concludes the discussion of the feature outright.
So telling me it's a hack once again is not moving us forward.
>Fact is if you "get your way" with issue it's going to cause
>porblems for me later when I have to port your ".war" to UNIX,
>Netware or AS400, all of which run Tomcat, btw.
That's not neccessarily the case and a different conversation. I'm
not trying to 'get my way', I'm trying to discuss the inclusion of
what I believe is a useful, neccessary feature. We're still debating
whether such a feature _should_ be included. Let's suppose that we
agree we should consider it and move on to discussing its possible
implementation. Perhaps a requirement for any implementation will be
'the feature does not cause problems for Nick Bauman when porting
Peter Gadjokov's WARs to AS/400' and perhaps it turns out it's
impossible to meet such a requirement and we drop the feature or
change the requirement. But all of that is, as I said, is a separate
conversation. Let's not mix up design and implementation and
philosophical reasons to dismiss the feature and practical,
implementation-specific reasons not to implement it.
P.S. At the risk of being an even more annoying pedant - MacOS X and
Darwin running on HFS+ _are_ Unix.
-pvg