Sounds like a good thing to change for the next major version. From a user point of view I think deploying the same EJB jar in two different web applications should just work.
Best regards, Tommy Tynjä On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro < jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> wrote: > 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 > > >>> > > > >>> > > >
