On 12/27/05, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My own views in line. > > Mark > > Mark Thomas wrote: > > Jacob Hookom wrote: > > > >>I'd like to get the ball rolling on a branch for JSP 2.1. > > > > I can get the SVN stuff set up over the next few days. There has been > > some debate about how we arrange things so we need to get agreement on > > the way forward. > > > > The key questions are: > > - does 6.0.x become the main development branch? > Yes. We did this for 5.5.x and it worked.
Yes, you'll need to create a branch for 5.5. > > > - do we merge jasper and container? > No. Good to keep them independent. The independence is not given by the fact they are in different trees - the connector and container are not independent, yet in different trees. And the 'separation' of jasper and container can be achieved as well by continuing to use differet packages :-). > > - do we merge build and container > Maybe. If someone wants to take the time to do this and update the > build scripts great. Personally, not an itch I feel the need to scratch. Probably doesn't make sense if this is the only change. It seems people are not ok with a single source tree. > > > - do we maintain servletapi for 6.0? > No for the api stuff proper. We don't host it, can't change it and our > own implementation would be more trouble than it is worth. > > Maybe for the examples. It is useful to be able to fix problems with > them. The examples could always be merged in with the container module. IMO - 6.0 would be the best chance to reorg the tree structure. Given that JDK1.5 will be required, it means we could remove all <1.4 code and hacks, and a lot of the build hacks that are used to deal with multiple VMs and options. I think we should just create a tomcat6/ repository, and then take a snapshot of all subtrees in the current tomcat and place the all in the same tree, under tomcat6/java. Then start with a fresh build.xml - excluding or removing the 1.1 - 1.4 support classes. Well - I would go even further, on creating a smaller number of jars for the distribution, but I guess that would be even less popular than the singe tree. I do understand I'm in a very small minority with this proposal, just want to have it on the record :-) Costin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
