On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 7:24 AM, David Jencks <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 2010, at 1:48 PM, David Blevins wrote: > > > > > On Jun 1, 2010, at 7:06 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: > > > >> > >> On May 27, 2010, at 5:03 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> > >>> Author: dblevins > >>> Date: Thu May 27 21:03:52 2010 > >>> New Revision: 948999 > >>> > >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=948999&view=rev > >>> Log: > >>> svn merge -r 948242:948243 > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/trunk/openejb3 > >>> > >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=948243&view=rev > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> r948243 | djencks | 2010-05-25 16:03:16 -0700 (Tue, 25 May 2010) | 1 > line > >>> > >>> OPENEJB-1014 remove a lot of incorrect/misleading java: prefixes when > accessing local jndi rather than an initial context > >> > >> David, > >> This is going to break Geronimo 2.2.x. The associated jndi changes that > make this possible are only in Geronimo 3.0. So, we either need to revert to > previous (admittedly faulty) functionality or do a fair amount of work to > have Geronimo 2.2.1-SNAPSHOT behave properly. > > > > Side note, IMO, not supporting it is a failure. > > I agree, we would be working around a long-standing bug in geronimo 2.2. I > was really glad to fix it in trunk and then fix openejb. > > To fix it in geronimo, we need an InitialContextFactoryBuilder modeled on > the aries one, but using gbeans instead of osgi services. This would only > take an hour or two to write. However it may cause a fair amount of > upheaval to get it properly installed and configured. I don't have a lot of > time to spend on this right now, maybe I should try writing the ICFB and we > can see how hard it is to get it to work. > David, Will you try writing the ICFB in Geronimo ? This problem is still a blocker for geronimo 221 release. Or can we revert this change until geronimo 221 is released ? > > david jencks > > > > >> > >> Was there a strong motivation to merge this back into 3.1.x? > > > > No, was just trying to keep them in sync where possible. > > > > Are we seeing failures due to this? > > > > > > -David > > > > -- Shawn
