On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org> wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >> If there's a desire to move ahead with a new connector at the tomcat >> project, and the branch/release approach is planned to yield stable >> code that will improve from release to release, why even retain the >> association to 'jk'? It seems it would benefit the effort if stable >> code was released with a new module name that could grow to become >> trustworthy in user's/adopter's minds. >> >> > Why would you wish to change the name? > Even today we occasionally have a question about mod_jk2 :) > so this would only make things more confusing. > > We don't wish to drop the mod_jk, only put it inside > maintenance mode with few pending things to finish > like Rainer explained. It looks more like Rainer has a list of features to add, and the main problem with jk is that it's frozen in 'you can't add/change anything because it's stable'. I don't see good reasons to change the name of the project when adding features, it'll just confuse people. It seems natural for a project to add more features and improve in time - not freeze and be replaced with a newly named project. Costin
