Was thinking the same this morning. Le 18 avr. 2014 11:23, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> they will be removed (alsmot) for sure in tomee 2 but I don't think > we'll do it in tomee 1.x > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > 2014-04-18 10:29 GMT+02:00 Andy Gumbrecht <agumbre...@tomitribe.com>: > > Perfectly clear, was just thinking aloud and wondering if removing in a > future version is possible. If the TCK is happy then we're all happy ;-) > > -- > > Andy Gumbrecht http://www.tomitribe.com > > TomEE treibt Tomitribe! > > Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse my brevity. > > > > On April 18, 2014 9:37:36 AM CEST, Jean-Louis Monteiro < > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote: > >>Hi, > >> > >>Just to be clear. > >>The legacy binding does not affect neither TCK nor certification. > >>It won't affect Java EE 6 applications. > >> > >>And I don't want to remove the support right now. I just want to change > >>the > >>default behavior and only bind java ee 6 names instead of legacy one + > >>java > >>ee 6. > >>But definitely, users can still activate the binding with a simple > >>property. > >> > >> > >>JLouis > >> > >> -- > >> Jean-Louis Monteiro > >> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > >> http://www.tomitribe.com > >> > >> > >>On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > >><rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> > >>> No > >>> > >>> legacy stuff is not specified at all > >>> > >>> > >>> Romain Manni-Bucau > >>> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >>> > >>> > >>> 2014-04-17 10:48 GMT+02:00 Andy Gumbrecht <agumbre...@tomitribe.com>: > >>> > That's true :-) , and I'd not upgrade a server where I really need > >>that > >>> > legacy support. I'd rather look at improving the app to use new > >>stuff. > >>> > It's still the question of TCK. Does is test the legacy stuff, i.e. > >>will > >>> it > >>> > need the flag 'on' to pass? > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On 17/04/2014 10:34, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> someone is us too ;) > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >>> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >>> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >>> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >>> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> 2014-04-17 10:33 GMT+02:00 Andy Gumbrecht > >><agumbre...@tomitribe.com>: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> +1 > >>> >>> > >>> >>> There should also be a point where dropping legacy (and the code > >>that > >>> >>> goes > >>> >>> with it) should occur. If someone is using something 'really' old > >>then > >>> >>> they > >>> >>> are unlikely to upgrade the server anyway. > >>> >>> The hard bit is deciding what is 'old'. > >>> >>> How does dropping things like that affect the TCK? > >>> >>> How heavy is the old stuff weighing on the new stuff? > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Andy. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> On 16/04/2014 11:19, Jean-Louis Monteiro wrote: > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> Hi guys, > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> I would like to get your opinion on the legacy names support. > >>> >>>> Since Java EE 6, JNDI names are (more or less) standardized. > >>It's > >>> fine. > >>> >>>> To help users upgrade from OpenEJB to TomEE, we still bind > >>legacy > >>> names > >>> >>>> to > >>> >>>> JNDI which is also fine from a user point of view. At least it > >>was > >>> IMHO. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> But now, since almost everybody uses CollapsedEAR, they only > >>deploy > >>> WARs > >>> >>>> with JARs in TomEE. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> A few of them still want to fight with EAR packaging even > >>through > >>> there > >>> >>>> is > >>> >>>> still a need to sometimes share a business logic across more > >>than one > >>> >>>> webapp. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> In that case, they usually deploy the same business jar into 2 > >>> different > >>> >>>> webapps in TomEE. > >>> >>>> That leads to JNDI exception because previous (legacy) names > >>where not > >>> >>>> unique in the application server, whereas with new Java EE 6 > >>names, it > >>> >>>> should work. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> Long story short, I would like to change the default settings to > >>not > >>> >>>> bind > >>> >>>> legacy names by default so that out of the box, deploying the > >>same EJB > >>> >>>> JAR > >>> >>>> into 2 different webapps must work. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> If users still want to bind legacy names, never mind they can > >>just > >>> >>>> activate > >>> >>>> the property in the system.properties file. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> WDYT? > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> -- > >>> >>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro > >>> >>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > >>> >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com > >>> >>>> > >>> >>> -- > >>> >>> Andy Gumbrecht > >>> >>> > >>> >>> http://www.tomitribe.com > >>> >>> agumbre...@tomitribe.com > >>> >>> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > >>> >>> > >>> >>> TomEE treibt Tomitribe! | http://tomee.apache.org > >>> >>> > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > Andy Gumbrecht > >>> > > >>> > http://www.tomitribe.com > >>> > agumbre...@tomitribe.com > >>> > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe > >>> > > >>> > TomEE treibt Tomitribe! | http://tomee.apache.org > >>> > > >>> >
