On 9/15/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Costin Manolache wrote: > > > > Well, regarding the veto - it's simple. I second Remy's opinion that the > > veto is valid > > and the change is not right at the moment, and I guess that should > close > > this discussion. > > > > The discussion about whether to add such a feature or not - I think a > simple > > vote > > would solve this as well, it's quite a subjective and taste-based issue. > > There are many > > other features that serve a small number of users only, the usual > question > > was > > if enough tomcat developers are willing to support and want the feature. > > > > Just to be clear; Is the veto against the actual patch or the feature? > If for the actual patch, then maybe you and Remy could provide feedback > to Tim on what would make it acceptable... If for the actual feature, > then I'm not sure how to jive that with your 2nd statement about a simple > vote...
My understanding was that veto can only be against a patch. And for a feature - some majority would do it. Regarding feedback on patch - I think I expressed my concerns: - more analysis and understanding of security implications - if possible to do it at a different (higher) level - if it can be done in a modular fashion, i.e. keeping the default impl the way it is, without this feature, and adding a way to configure a different module with this or other features. ( bonus points if the add-on module is a separate release and very easy to add ) In other words - bloat ( same as Remy's concern I guess) and understanding if this is the best possible implementation if the bloat is deemed acceptable. Costin
