I don't mind documenting it -- write up the web page you want (in the xdocs format used by the rest of the docs: see http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/tomcat/container/tc5.5.x/webapps/docs/ for examples), submit it here or on bugzilla, and we can add it to the docs.
Yoav On 5/8/06, Darryl Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Would it be possible to have an Implementation Erratum section on the TC website to track this sort of thing. Its fine to take such a decision on the basis that "The Spec is silly", but it does need to be broadcast for the attention of the userbase. At the very least it will curb future buzilla noise from this direction and kill any user angst about the subject of "Exactly which spec does TC support". Maybe each case can have its own page detailing: * Summary of the situation. * What the specification says should happen. The TC developers interpretation of what the spec means to TC and realworld apps. * The technical argument why the specification is not practical or not useful in the realworld. * Affected versions of TC. * Any details on the specification committee being notified to allow the subject to at least be brought before other interested parties of the respective JSR. * Workaround ideas that might help someone trying to get back to the specified behaviour to make their app work again. * Related Bugzilla Entries. Although negative publicity about the point maybe undesirable. No one can then complain in the future about any deviation from the spec is formally documented. Otherwise what does TC become if you can't cite some level of interoperability with any confidence. Of course blame the system and of course recommend a more constructive approach when doing so. Finalizing the design of any computer system in the specification stage does not seem like sensible practice. Getting an agreed written specification is a good start, but there should be a further process before a final revision is closed and that should only happen after at least 2 or 3 parties involved have implementation it and reported back to the group on their concerns when doing so. Which then allow further revisions and corrections to take place. Darryl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39503 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Status|NEW |RESOLVED > Resolution| |WONTFIX > > > > > ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-07 00:08 ------- > I am totally opposed to fixing this, which has to be an obvious specification issue. > > The last part is invalid (getRequestUri will return what you gave to the > dispatcher). > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Yoav Shapira Nimalex LLC 1 Mifflin Place, Suite 310 Cambridge, MA, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] / www.yoavshapira.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
