You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org> on 2005/12/20 21:31:46 UTC
Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Hi,
Besides adding support for Servlet 2.5 which does not seem too
overwhelming, most of the specification work is on support of JSP 2.1. I
am happy to report that Jacob Hookom is willing to contribute code to
add the necessary JSP support in Tomcat (he has done such an
implementation already, and owns the copyright on that code). To host
the code, a new branch is going to be needed for Jasper (as well as a
new folder in servletapi).
For testing the implementation, Jacob is going to need access to the JSP
2.1 TCK (I suppose he'll need to be a committer to do that, but it
should be ok by then).
Comments ?
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Replying to three messages n one: see inline.
> Besides adding support for Servlet 2.5 which does not seem too
> overwhelming, most of the specification work is on support of JSP 2.1.
My observation as well.
> am happy to report that Jacob Hookom is willing to contribute code to
> add the necessary JSP support in Tomcat (he has done such an
> implementation already, and owns the copyright on that code).
Excellent, glad to hear it.
> For testing the implementation, Jacob is going to need access to the JSP
> 2.1 TCK (I suppose he'll need to be a committer to do that, but it
> should be ok by then).
I have access to the Servlet and JSP TCKs (current versions 2.4 and
2.0 respectively, but once the 2.5 and 2.1 are available, those as
well), and can help in this regard.
> Comments ?
Let's get cracking after 5.5.15.
Bill Barker said:
> We'll have to get access to the TCK ourselves first ;-).
"We" loosely defined as current Tomcat committers, already do. You
need to send Geir Magnusson <ge...@apache.org> (in his capacity as the
Apache JCP coordinator) an email saying you want access to the TCKs
relevant to Tomcat, and he'll set you up.
Keith Wannamaker said:
>There was some talk of merging the modules in 6, is there any
objection to that?
No objection, I don't think, but uncertainty as to which modules to
combine and into what SVN structure.
Yoav
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com>.
+1
Costin
On 12/20/05, Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Besides adding support for Servlet 2.5 which does not seem too
> overwhelming, most of the specification work is on support of JSP 2.1. I
> am happy to report that Jacob Hookom is willing to contribute code to
> add the necessary JSP support in Tomcat (he has done such an
> implementation already, and owns the copyright on that code). To host
> the code, a new branch is going to be needed for Jasper (as well as a
> new folder in servletapi).
>
> For testing the implementation, Jacob is going to need access to the JSP
> 2.1 TCK (I suppose he'll need to be a committer to do that, but it
> should be ok by then).
>
> Comments ?
>
> Rémy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Hi,
I actually meant smaller in terms of file size (both downloaded
distributions and actual jars or executables), number of files (both
source code and configuration/support files), directories, etc. I do
think the out-of-the-box footprint is already pretty good, especially
when dependencies like the JVM's rt.jar are considered.
As to Allistair's comment: you might be surprised by how many of us
care about supporting stuff like JMX instrumentation ;) I think it's
fair to say we all use Tomcat, and I imagine virtually all of us have
to deal with either system administrator who live by this "supporting
stuff" and bug us about it, or at least customers who ask about it
fairly routinely... The key is getting the time bandwidth to do
stuff.
Yoav
On 12/22/05, Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well a Tomcat will a small memory footprint is also very interesting for me :)
>
> For guidelines on how to use it ?
>
> 2005/12/22, Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>:
> > I'm willing to help...
> >
> > Yoav
> >
> > On 12/21/05, Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well, it's not about 'vote' or plans, it's more about what people have
> > > time to do.
> > >
> > > I have checked in the build files for a 'standalone' tomcat in the
> > > sandbox, I've been using the single jar almost exclusively, seems to
> > > work fine. But I have a feeling I'm the only one interested in this
> > > :-). Removing more features to make it really minimal is quite simple,
> > > but requires testing and a bit of work. I don't think we need any new
> > > code - just small adjustments and different packaging - and a bit of
> > > will.
> > >
> > > Costin
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/21/05, Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > - What could prevent TC 6.x to became more modular ?
> > > >
> > > > - Design, commercial dependencies or personal decisions.
> > > >
> > > > Why not send a sort of vote on some possible architectures and plans ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2005/12/21, Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>:
> > > > > +1 to Costin's stuff... I've been itching for a truly minimal Tomcat
> > > > > distro for a while...
> > > > >
> > > > > Yoav
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/21/05, Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I would really like to have something more modular too - I understand
> > > > > > that NIO and the
> > > > > > other connector stuff is unlikely to see the main branch, but I think
> > > > > > 'minimal standalone + modules' deserves a chance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Even if we continue to ship by default a bloated tomcat, with all the
> > > > > > features anyone can think of or ever wanted - having those features
> > > > > > organized like modules would make a lot of things easier and better.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Almost all important platforms are designed this way - apache, jboss,
> > > > > > firefox, etc, it would be time for tomcat as well..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By minimal standalone tomcat I mean: coyote http11 + servlet + jsp +
> > > > > > minimal set of valves to have a TCK-accepted container. Modules ==
> > > > > > jdbc authenticators, load balancing, ssl, jk, even APR, and anything
> > > > > > that could be eventually released or upgraded independently.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Costin
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/21/05, Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Sorry, so far nobody has had the sense to propose returning to the good old
> > > > > > > > TC 3.3 Interceptors ;-). It looks like Evolution is here to stay.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't know if Interceptors would be a good solutions but I'd really
> > > > > > > like to have something similar to Apache modules.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Yoav Shapira
> > > > > System Design and Management Fellow
> > > > > MIT Sloan School of Management
> > > > > Cambridge, MA, USA
> > > > > yoavs@computer.org / www.yoavshapira.com
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Yoav Shapira
> > System Design and Management Fellow
> > MIT Sloan School of Management
> > Cambridge, MA, USA
> > yoavs@computer.org / www.yoavshapira.com
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
--
Yoav Shapira
System Design and Management Fellow
MIT Sloan School of Management
Cambridge, MA, USA
yoavs@computer.org / www.yoavshapira.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com>.
On 12/22/05, Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> Costin Manolache wrote:
> > I understand this doesn't help for JBoss - but tomcat != jboss.
>
> I don't see the need for refactorings, and that's my *personal* opinion.
That's my opinion as well - if by refactoring you mean major code changes.
Are you saying that jboss modularity is a bad thing ? Or we shouldn't
do the same thing because it's already done in jboss ? Or it's not
worth having it, and it's better to stick with the monolithic approach
?
>
> > It's funny that JBoss does have most of this capability already - so I
> > understand Remy not wanting to reinvent the wheel :-), but I don't
> > think he can deny that this is a good thing to have.
>
> Very funny. Who implemented hot deployment in Tomcat ?
>
Thanks for that, but why stop there ? :-)
Costin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com>.
2005/12/22, Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com>:
> On 12/22/05, Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Less class loaded - and less classes/features you need to worry when
> > > setting up and maintainig is what I meant by footprint - Jetty is
> > > around 0.5M I think.
> >
> >
> > what's the expected class/size for this SmallCat single jar ?
>
> Around 1.4M without jasper compiler ( but with support for precompiled jsps ).
Great that's exactly my need (we only use precompiled JSP)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
Costin Manolache wrote:
> I understand this doesn't help for JBoss - but tomcat != jboss.
I don't see the need for refactorings, and that's my *personal* opinion.
> It's funny that JBoss does have most of this capability already - so I
> understand Remy not wanting to reinvent the wheel :-), but I don't
> think he can deny that this is a good thing to have.
Very funny. Who implemented hot deployment in Tomcat ?
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com>.
On 12/22/05, Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Less class loaded - and less classes/features you need to worry when
> > setting up and maintainig is what I meant by footprint - Jetty is
> > around 0.5M I think.
>
>
> what's the expected class/size for this SmallCat single jar ?
Around 1.4M without jasper compiler ( but with support for precompiled jsps ).
> +1 even if 2 of the major tomcat mainteners are JBOSS employees and we
> should all recognize it helped to people working full time on TC
> 5.5.x. Thanks JBOSS
+1 :-)
Costin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com>.
> I didn't do any real benchmark, but the single-jar 5.5 should be as
> fast on startup as 3.3.
good
> Less class loaded - and less classes/features you need to worry when
> setting up and maintainig is what I meant by footprint - Jetty is
> around 0.5M I think.
what's the expected class/size for this SmallCat single jar ?
> The fact that we have features for everyone is nice - but a developer
> doesn't need clustering
> or APR, and a production server doesn't need the old connector, the
> simple realm or the even the jasper compiler. It's more about beeing
> simpler for everyone - by providing the functionality they use.
>
> And no - it doesn't require any major refactoring - just small tweakings.
>
> I understand this doesn't help for JBoss - but tomcat != jboss.
+1 even if 2 of the major tomcat mainteners are JBOSS employees and we
should all recognize it helped to people working full time on TC
5.5.x. Thanks JBOSS
> As for JMX - I think we do have a lot of things exposed, and adding
> more is quite easy. I think part of the problem is that we may have
> too much :-), and most generic JMX tools are not that good when you
> have too much data to browse. IMO organizaing a bit the information
> and maybe providing simpler interfaces would help.
> Having a minimal set of features in the base package doesn't mean you
> can't have a lot of features, and it doesn't mean it's much harder to
> add features. In a production environment it's the same - either you
> remove all the components you don't need or don't understand ( and
> might break something ), or just add the components that you need.
>
> Think about Firefox versus Mozilla. We are in exactly the same
> situation, just on server side :-)
Well I switched from Mozilla to IE for such reason and now back to
Firefox since its a small and great piece of OSS (and of course much
more secure)
> It's funny that JBoss does have most of this capability already - so I
> understand Remy not wanting to reinvent the wheel :-), but I don't
> think he can deny that this is a good thing to have.
Of course, JBOSS selected the finest developpers « des têtes bien
faite plutôt que des tête s bien pleines :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com>.
On 12/22/05, Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2005/12/22, Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>:
> > Henri Gomez wrote:
> > > Well a Tomcat will a small memory footprint is also very interesting for me :)
> >
> > How is Tomcat memory usage large ? Personally, I would think it's
> > extremely reasonable given the feature set, at least when using APR. It
> > would seem the base Java runtime would completely offset any gain there.
>
> Well memory is not the only point, faster start and less class to be
> loaded is also very important for me. In my company we're still using
> Tomcat 3.3.2 on our production servers (iSeries) since they are quite
> fast to start and that's very important when you have at the same time
> not less than 20 or 25 instances of Tomcat starting in its own JVM
> (one tomcat for a customer since the applications hosted have
> differents life cycle and constraint).
>
I didn't do any real benchmark, but the single-jar 5.5 should be as
fast on startup as 3.3.
Less class loaded - and less classes/features you need to worry when
setting up and maintainig is what I meant by footprint - Jetty is
around 0.5M I think.
The fact that we have features for everyone is nice - but a developer
doesn't need clustering
or APR, and a production server doesn't need the old connector, the
simple realm or the even the jasper compiler. It's more about beeing
simpler for everyone - by providing the functionality they use.
And no - it doesn't require any major refactoring - just small tweakings.
I understand this doesn't help for JBoss - but tomcat != jboss.
As for JMX - I think we do have a lot of things exposed, and adding
more is quite easy. I think part of the problem is that we may have
too much :-), and most generic JMX tools are not that good when you
have too much data to browse. IMO organizaing a bit the information
and maybe providing simpler interfaces would help.
Having a minimal set of features in the base package doesn't mean you
can't have a lot of features, and it doesn't mean it's much harder to
add features. In a production environment it's the same - either you
remove all the components you don't need or don't understand ( and
might break something ), or just add the components that you need.
Think about Firefox versus Mozilla. We are in exactly the same
situation, just on server side :-)
It's funny that JBoss does have most of this capability already - so I
understand Remy not wanting to reinvent the wheel :-), but I don't
think he can deny that this is a good thing to have.
Costin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com>.
On 12/22/05, Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> Henri Gomez wrote:
> > Well memory is not the only point, faster start and less class to be
> > loaded is also very important for me. In my company we're still using
> > Tomcat 3.3.2 on our production servers (iSeries) since they are quite
> > fast to start and that's very important when you have at the same time
> > not less than 20 or 25 instances of Tomcat starting in its own JVM
> > (one tomcat for a customer since the applications hosted have
> > differents life cycle and constraint).
>
> Did you actually compare memory usage of an JVM instance with 3.3.2 with
> 5.5.14/APR (using APR and AJP will make the thread count much lower
> which should save you a decent amount of memory - see the appropriate
> parameters for the connector) ?
Or you can try the NIO connector in sandbox if you want to play :-), same
benefits as AJP in terms of lower thread count and concurrency...
( if we do the modular tomcat - I can remove the nio connector from
sandbox, and move
it to sourceforge :-)
>
> As for faster start, sorry, there is not much that can be done: the spec
> requires a lot of stuff now, and modern webapps actually tend to do much
> more than Tomcat itself.
There is a lot that can be done. I agree that many webapps do more
than tomcat ( in the servlet init for auto-started servlets ), but
that doesn't mean we can't reduce our part.
One thing that 3.3 did ( or tried to do - I don't remember if it got
finished ) was to avoid parsing web.xml/tld files unless modified.
This and skiping all the modules you don't need are a good start in
reducing startup time.
For a production env it doesn't matter, but for development - or
normal use - it is a big deal.
Costin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com>.
2005/12/22, Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>:
> Henri Gomez wrote:
> > Well memory is not the only point, faster start and less class to be
> > loaded is also very important for me. In my company we're still using
> > Tomcat 3.3.2 on our production servers (iSeries) since they are quite
> > fast to start and that's very important when you have at the same time
> > not less than 20 or 25 instances of Tomcat starting in its own JVM
> > (one tomcat for a customer since the applications hosted have
> > differents life cycle and constraint).
>
> Did you actually compare memory usage of an JVM instance with 3.3.2 with
> 5.5.14/APR (using APR and AJP will make the thread count much lower
> which should save you a decent amount of memory - see the appropriate
> parameters for the connector) ?
Eh eh APR on 5.5.14 on iSeries need I rebuild the APR/JNI part on
iSeries and I didn't tried right now (as soon it will be ready, I'll
upload it to JTC or TC areas).
> As for faster start, sorry, there is not much that can be done: the spec
> requires a lot of stuff now, and modern webapps actually tend to do much
> more than Tomcat itself.
Right, but the idea (dream ?) is to be able to remove stuff not needed
for a very basic usage, TC 3.3.2 does that with modules/interceptors
files, TC 5.5.x allow some kind of configuration in its server.xml,
could we goes farther ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
Henri Gomez wrote:
> Well memory is not the only point, faster start and less class to be
> loaded is also very important for me. In my company we're still using
> Tomcat 3.3.2 on our production servers (iSeries) since they are quite
> fast to start and that's very important when you have at the same time
> not less than 20 or 25 instances of Tomcat starting in its own JVM
> (one tomcat for a customer since the applications hosted have
> differents life cycle and constraint).
Did you actually compare memory usage of an JVM instance with 3.3.2 with
5.5.14/APR (using APR and AJP will make the thread count much lower
which should save you a decent amount of memory - see the appropriate
parameters for the connector) ?
As for faster start, sorry, there is not much that can be done: the spec
requires a lot of stuff now, and modern webapps actually tend to do much
more than Tomcat itself.
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com>.
2005/12/22, Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>:
> Henri Gomez wrote:
> > Well a Tomcat will a small memory footprint is also very interesting for me :)
>
> How is Tomcat memory usage large ? Personally, I would think it's
> extremely reasonable given the feature set, at least when using APR. It
> would seem the base Java runtime would completely offset any gain there.
Well memory is not the only point, faster start and less class to be
loaded is also very important for me. In my company we're still using
Tomcat 3.3.2 on our production servers (iSeries) since they are quite
fast to start and that's very important when you have at the same time
not less than 20 or 25 instances of Tomcat starting in its own JVM
(one tomcat for a customer since the applications hosted have
differents life cycle and constraint).
One point important with MX on a production system. It's fun to have
it when you're a developper but when you have to explain each entries
to the production teams it turn to be a nightmare :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
Henri Gomez wrote:
> Well a Tomcat will a small memory footprint is also very interesting for me :)
How is Tomcat memory usage large ? Personally, I would think it's
extremely reasonable given the feature set, at least when using APR. It
would seem the base Java runtime would completely offset any gain there.
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com>.
Well a Tomcat will a small memory footprint is also very interesting for me :)
For guidelines on how to use it ?
2005/12/22, Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>:
> I'm willing to help...
>
> Yoav
>
> On 12/21/05, Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, it's not about 'vote' or plans, it's more about what people have
> > time to do.
> >
> > I have checked in the build files for a 'standalone' tomcat in the
> > sandbox, I've been using the single jar almost exclusively, seems to
> > work fine. But I have a feeling I'm the only one interested in this
> > :-). Removing more features to make it really minimal is quite simple,
> > but requires testing and a bit of work. I don't think we need any new
> > code - just small adjustments and different packaging - and a bit of
> > will.
> >
> > Costin
> >
> >
> > On 12/21/05, Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > - What could prevent TC 6.x to became more modular ?
> > >
> > > - Design, commercial dependencies or personal decisions.
> > >
> > > Why not send a sort of vote on some possible architectures and plans ?
> > >
> > >
> > > 2005/12/21, Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>:
> > > > +1 to Costin's stuff... I've been itching for a truly minimal Tomcat
> > > > distro for a while...
> > > >
> > > > Yoav
> > > >
> > > > On 12/21/05, Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I would really like to have something more modular too - I understand
> > > > > that NIO and the
> > > > > other connector stuff is unlikely to see the main branch, but I think
> > > > > 'minimal standalone + modules' deserves a chance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even if we continue to ship by default a bloated tomcat, with all the
> > > > > features anyone can think of or ever wanted - having those features
> > > > > organized like modules would make a lot of things easier and better.
> > > > >
> > > > > Almost all important platforms are designed this way - apache, jboss,
> > > > > firefox, etc, it would be time for tomcat as well..
> > > > >
> > > > > By minimal standalone tomcat I mean: coyote http11 + servlet + jsp +
> > > > > minimal set of valves to have a TCK-accepted container. Modules ==
> > > > > jdbc authenticators, load balancing, ssl, jk, even APR, and anything
> > > > > that could be eventually released or upgraded independently.
> > > > >
> > > > > Costin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/21/05, Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Sorry, so far nobody has had the sense to propose returning to the good old
> > > > > > > TC 3.3 Interceptors ;-). It looks like Evolution is here to stay.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know if Interceptors would be a good solutions but I'd really
> > > > > > like to have something similar to Apache modules.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Yoav Shapira
> > > > System Design and Management Fellow
> > > > MIT Sloan School of Management
> > > > Cambridge, MA, USA
> > > > yoavs@computer.org / www.yoavshapira.com
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Yoav Shapira
> System Design and Management Fellow
> MIT Sloan School of Management
> Cambridge, MA, USA
> yoavs@computer.org / www.yoavshapira.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
I'm willing to help...
Yoav
On 12/21/05, Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, it's not about 'vote' or plans, it's more about what people have
> time to do.
>
> I have checked in the build files for a 'standalone' tomcat in the
> sandbox, I've been using the single jar almost exclusively, seems to
> work fine. But I have a feeling I'm the only one interested in this
> :-). Removing more features to make it really minimal is quite simple,
> but requires testing and a bit of work. I don't think we need any new
> code - just small adjustments and different packaging - and a bit of
> will.
>
> Costin
>
>
> On 12/21/05, Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > - What could prevent TC 6.x to became more modular ?
> >
> > - Design, commercial dependencies or personal decisions.
> >
> > Why not send a sort of vote on some possible architectures and plans ?
> >
> >
> > 2005/12/21, Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>:
> > > +1 to Costin's stuff... I've been itching for a truly minimal Tomcat
> > > distro for a while...
> > >
> > > Yoav
> > >
> > > On 12/21/05, Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I would really like to have something more modular too - I understand
> > > > that NIO and the
> > > > other connector stuff is unlikely to see the main branch, but I think
> > > > 'minimal standalone + modules' deserves a chance.
> > > >
> > > > Even if we continue to ship by default a bloated tomcat, with all the
> > > > features anyone can think of or ever wanted - having those features
> > > > organized like modules would make a lot of things easier and better.
> > > >
> > > > Almost all important platforms are designed this way - apache, jboss,
> > > > firefox, etc, it would be time for tomcat as well..
> > > >
> > > > By minimal standalone tomcat I mean: coyote http11 + servlet + jsp +
> > > > minimal set of valves to have a TCK-accepted container. Modules ==
> > > > jdbc authenticators, load balancing, ssl, jk, even APR, and anything
> > > > that could be eventually released or upgraded independently.
> > > >
> > > > Costin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 12/21/05, Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Sorry, so far nobody has had the sense to propose returning to the good old
> > > > > > TC 3.3 Interceptors ;-). It looks like Evolution is here to stay.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know if Interceptors would be a good solutions but I'd really
> > > > > like to have something similar to Apache modules.
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Yoav Shapira
> > > System Design and Management Fellow
> > > MIT Sloan School of Management
> > > Cambridge, MA, USA
> > > yoavs@computer.org / www.yoavshapira.com
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
--
Yoav Shapira
System Design and Management Fellow
MIT Sloan School of Management
Cambridge, MA, USA
yoavs@computer.org / www.yoavshapira.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com>.
Well, it's not about 'vote' or plans, it's more about what people have
time to do.
I have checked in the build files for a 'standalone' tomcat in the
sandbox, I've been using the single jar almost exclusively, seems to
work fine. But I have a feeling I'm the only one interested in this
:-). Removing more features to make it really minimal is quite simple,
but requires testing and a bit of work. I don't think we need any new
code - just small adjustments and different packaging - and a bit of
will.
Costin
On 12/21/05, Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - What could prevent TC 6.x to became more modular ?
>
> - Design, commercial dependencies or personal decisions.
>
> Why not send a sort of vote on some possible architectures and plans ?
>
>
> 2005/12/21, Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>:
> > +1 to Costin's stuff... I've been itching for a truly minimal Tomcat
> > distro for a while...
> >
> > Yoav
> >
> > On 12/21/05, Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I would really like to have something more modular too - I understand
> > > that NIO and the
> > > other connector stuff is unlikely to see the main branch, but I think
> > > 'minimal standalone + modules' deserves a chance.
> > >
> > > Even if we continue to ship by default a bloated tomcat, with all the
> > > features anyone can think of or ever wanted - having those features
> > > organized like modules would make a lot of things easier and better.
> > >
> > > Almost all important platforms are designed this way - apache, jboss,
> > > firefox, etc, it would be time for tomcat as well..
> > >
> > > By minimal standalone tomcat I mean: coyote http11 + servlet + jsp +
> > > minimal set of valves to have a TCK-accepted container. Modules ==
> > > jdbc authenticators, load balancing, ssl, jk, even APR, and anything
> > > that could be eventually released or upgraded independently.
> > >
> > > Costin
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/21/05, Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Sorry, so far nobody has had the sense to propose returning to the good old
> > > > > TC 3.3 Interceptors ;-). It looks like Evolution is here to stay.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know if Interceptors would be a good solutions but I'd really
> > > > like to have something similar to Apache modules.
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Yoav Shapira
> > System Design and Management Fellow
> > MIT Sloan School of Management
> > Cambridge, MA, USA
> > yoavs@computer.org / www.yoavshapira.com
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com>.
- What could prevent TC 6.x to became more modular ?
- Design, commercial dependencies or personal decisions.
Why not send a sort of vote on some possible architectures and plans ?
2005/12/21, Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>:
> +1 to Costin's stuff... I've been itching for a truly minimal Tomcat
> distro for a while...
>
> Yoav
>
> On 12/21/05, Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would really like to have something more modular too - I understand
> > that NIO and the
> > other connector stuff is unlikely to see the main branch, but I think
> > 'minimal standalone + modules' deserves a chance.
> >
> > Even if we continue to ship by default a bloated tomcat, with all the
> > features anyone can think of or ever wanted - having those features
> > organized like modules would make a lot of things easier and better.
> >
> > Almost all important platforms are designed this way - apache, jboss,
> > firefox, etc, it would be time for tomcat as well..
> >
> > By minimal standalone tomcat I mean: coyote http11 + servlet + jsp +
> > minimal set of valves to have a TCK-accepted container. Modules ==
> > jdbc authenticators, load balancing, ssl, jk, even APR, and anything
> > that could be eventually released or upgraded independently.
> >
> > Costin
> >
> >
> > On 12/21/05, Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Sorry, so far nobody has had the sense to propose returning to the good old
> > > > TC 3.3 Interceptors ;-). It looks like Evolution is here to stay.
> > >
> > > I don't know if Interceptors would be a good solutions but I'd really
> > > like to have something similar to Apache modules.
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Yoav Shapira
> System Design and Management Fellow
> MIT Sloan School of Management
> Cambridge, MA, USA
> yoavs@computer.org / www.yoavshapira.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
+1 to Costin's stuff... I've been itching for a truly minimal Tomcat
distro for a while...
Yoav
On 12/21/05, Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would really like to have something more modular too - I understand
> that NIO and the
> other connector stuff is unlikely to see the main branch, but I think
> 'minimal standalone + modules' deserves a chance.
>
> Even if we continue to ship by default a bloated tomcat, with all the
> features anyone can think of or ever wanted - having those features
> organized like modules would make a lot of things easier and better.
>
> Almost all important platforms are designed this way - apache, jboss,
> firefox, etc, it would be time for tomcat as well..
>
> By minimal standalone tomcat I mean: coyote http11 + servlet + jsp +
> minimal set of valves to have a TCK-accepted container. Modules ==
> jdbc authenticators, load balancing, ssl, jk, even APR, and anything
> that could be eventually released or upgraded independently.
>
> Costin
>
>
> On 12/21/05, Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Sorry, so far nobody has had the sense to propose returning to the good old
> > > TC 3.3 Interceptors ;-). It looks like Evolution is here to stay.
> >
> > I don't know if Interceptors would be a good solutions but I'd really
> > like to have something similar to Apache modules.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
--
Yoav Shapira
System Design and Management Fellow
MIT Sloan School of Management
Cambridge, MA, USA
yoavs@computer.org / www.yoavshapira.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com>.
I would really like to have something more modular too - I understand
that NIO and the
other connector stuff is unlikely to see the main branch, but I think
'minimal standalone + modules' deserves a chance.
Even if we continue to ship by default a bloated tomcat, with all the
features anyone can think of or ever wanted - having those features
organized like modules would make a lot of things easier and better.
Almost all important platforms are designed this way - apache, jboss,
firefox, etc, it would be time for tomcat as well..
By minimal standalone tomcat I mean: coyote http11 + servlet + jsp +
minimal set of valves to have a TCK-accepted container. Modules ==
jdbc authenticators, load balancing, ssl, jk, even APR, and anything
that could be eventually released or upgraded independently.
Costin
On 12/21/05, Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sorry, so far nobody has had the sense to propose returning to the good old
> > TC 3.3 Interceptors ;-). It looks like Evolution is here to stay.
>
> I don't know if Interceptors would be a good solutions but I'd really
> like to have something similar to Apache modules.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com>.
> Sorry, so far nobody has had the sense to propose returning to the good old
> TC 3.3 Interceptors ;-). It looks like Evolution is here to stay.
I don't know if Interceptors would be a good solutions but I'd really
like to have something similar to Apache modules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Bill Barker <wb...@wilshire.com>.
"Henri Gomez" <he...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6291fc850512210122j264a211ex@mail.gmail.com...
2005/12/21, Bill Barker <wb...@wilshire.com>:
>> For Servlet 2.5, the highlights are:
>> Requires 1.5 as minimum Java version.
>> Needs to support Annotations (probably the biggest project).
>> Some minor changes to Sessions to support Portlets.
>> A couple of really minor changes to 'web.xml' parsing.
>>
>> Of course, you can always grab the spec as some light bedtime reading
>> ;-).
>
>Hum, like that kind of night reading :)
>
>BTW, my question was more on change in TC 6.x possible architecture
>change than in API needed to be implemented.
Sorry, so far nobody has had the sense to propose returning to the good old
TC 3.3 Interceptors ;-). It looks like Evolution is here to stay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com>.
2005/12/21, Bill Barker <wb...@wilshire.com>:
> For Servlet 2.5, the highlights are:
> Requires 1.5 as minimum Java version.
> Needs to support Annotations (probably the biggest project).
> Some minor changes to Sessions to support Portlets.
> A couple of really minor changes to 'web.xml' parsing.
>
> Of course, you can always grab the spec as some light bedtime reading ;-).
Hum, like that kind of night reading :)
BTW, my question was more on change in TC 6.x possible architecture
change than in API needed to be implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Bill Barker <wb...@wilshire.com>.
For Servlet 2.5, the highlights are:
Requires 1.5 as minimum Java version.
Needs to support Annotations (probably the biggest project).
Some minor changes to Sessions to support Portlets.
A couple of really minor changes to 'web.xml' parsing.
Of course, you can always grab the spec as some light bedtime reading ;-).
"Henri Gomez" <he...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6291fc850512210100n11348113p@mail.gmail.com...
+1
Appart the JSP 2.1, TC 6.0 changes will be in which areas ?
>2005/12/21, Tim Funk <fu...@joedog.org>:
> +0
>
> (+1 - if I can realign my day job duties to free up time to help more :( )
>
> -Tim
>
> Remy Maucherat wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Besides adding support for Servlet 2.5 which does not seem too
> > overwhelming, most of the specification work is on support of JSP 2.1. I
> > am happy to report that Jacob Hookom is willing to contribute code to
> > add the necessary JSP support in Tomcat (he has done such an
> > implementation already, and owns the copyright on that code). To host
> > the code, a new branch is going to be needed for Jasper (as well as a
> > new folder in servletapi).
> >
> > For testing the implementation, Jacob is going to need access to the JSP
> > 2.1 TCK (I suppose he'll need to be a committer to do that, but it
> > should be ok by then).
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com>.
+1
Appart the JSP 2.1, TC 6.0 changes will be in which areas ?
>2005/12/21, Tim Funk <fu...@joedog.org>:
> +0
>
> (+1 - if I can realign my day job duties to free up time to help more :( )
>
> -Tim
>
> Remy Maucherat wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Besides adding support for Servlet 2.5 which does not seem too
> > overwhelming, most of the specification work is on support of JSP 2.1. I
> > am happy to report that Jacob Hookom is willing to contribute code to
> > add the necessary JSP support in Tomcat (he has done such an
> > implementation already, and owns the copyright on that code). To host
> > the code, a new branch is going to be needed for Jasper (as well as a
> > new folder in servletapi).
> >
> > For testing the implementation, Jacob is going to need access to the JSP
> > 2.1 TCK (I suppose he'll need to be a committer to do that, but it
> > should be ok by then).
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Tim Funk <fu...@joedog.org>.
+0
(+1 - if I can realign my day job duties to free up time to help more :( )
-Tim
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Besides adding support for Servlet 2.5 which does not seem too
> overwhelming, most of the specification work is on support of JSP 2.1. I
> am happy to report that Jacob Hookom is willing to contribute code to
> add the necessary JSP support in Tomcat (he has done such an
> implementation already, and owns the copyright on that code). To host
> the code, a new branch is going to be needed for Jasper (as well as a
> new folder in servletapi).
>
> For testing the implementation, Jacob is going to need access to the JSP
> 2.1 TCK (I suppose he'll need to be a committer to do that, but it
> should be ok by then).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Keith Wannamaker <Ke...@Apache.org>.
There was some talk of merging the modules in 6, is there any objection
to that?
Keith
Bill Barker wrote:
> I agree that the changes for Servlet 2.5 aren't that bad, but we might as
> well branch Container while we are at it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
RE: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
Posted by Bill Barker <wb...@wilshire.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Remy Maucherat [mailto:remm@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 12:32 PM
> To: dev@tomcat.apache.org
> Subject: Tomcat 6 plans (JSP 2.1)
>
> Hi,
>
> Besides adding support for Servlet 2.5 which does not seem too
> overwhelming, most of the specification work is on support of
> JSP 2.1. I
> am happy to report that Jacob Hookom is willing to contribute code to
> add the necessary JSP support in Tomcat (he has done such an
> implementation already, and owns the copyright on that code). To host
> the code, a new branch is going to be needed for Jasper (as well as a
> new folder in servletapi).
>
Does this mean that we'll be hosting EL? IMHO, resurrecting commons-el to
bring it up to JSP 2.1 was always going to be the hardest part of TC 6.
I agree that the changes for Servlet 2.5 aren't that bad, but we might as
well branch Container while we are at it.
> For testing the implementation, Jacob is going to need access
> to the JSP
> 2.1 TCK (I suppose he'll need to be a committer to do that, but it
> should be ok by then).
>
We'll have to get access to the TCK ourselves first ;-).
> Comments ?
>
> Rémy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
>
This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) listed above as the intended recipient(s), and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not read, copy, or distribute this message or any attachment. If you received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and then delete all copies of this message and any attachments.
In addition you should be aware that ordinary (unencrypted) e-mail sent through the Internet is not secure. Do not send confidential or sensitive information, such as social security numbers, account numbers, personal identification numbers and passwords, to us via ordinary (unencrypted) e-mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org