Quoting Sam Ruby <rub...@apache.org>:

Oh, I think some of my signal was lost in the middle of the conversation. So, let me get this straighten out.

Here is what I would have liked to see happening in Tomcat:

1) Catalina was voted in. 2) Catalina was renamed Tomcat 4.0 and moved on the main trunk 3) Tomcat 3.x was proposed for internal fork and renamed *whatever* (but not
tomcat) 4) *whatever* was proposed for Tomcat 5.0 and voted in

In short, that was the way I would have liked Tomcat to route around Craig's ideas about servlet engine architectures.

Technically, I *HATE* tomcat 4.0, it's an accademic architectural exercise, it's slow as hell, it is a memory hog, it has mile-long recursive stacktraces, it's designed for J2EE embedding instead of being designed for a lightweight servlet plugin for web servers.

But that is my personal technical opinion and that is a totally different concern regarding the community dynamics.

I believe it was a mistake to allow two different codebases to share the same name. And the reason for this is mainly because it would have been very hard for the 3.x codebase to *revolutionize back* and route around 4.x. 3.x should have

But the negative waves of that period are still resonating around the foundation and I *don't* want to experience that again.