Same here.  I don't quite get why the old style files can't be parsed to
whatever newfangled data structure is used by the new version, with whatever
defaults best approximate the old behaviour.

Jean-François Lamy

-----Message d'origine-----
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Rob Lockstone
Envoyé : 29 octobre 2008 19:43
À : General Discussion for the Resin application server
Objet : Re: [Resin-interest] 3.2 experience?

I'm with you, Leonid! The config file changes from one "major" release  
to the next has always been a big pain. I know that some are needed  
from time to time, but this has often been the biggest hurdle in  
upgrading for us. We're still on 3.0.x because I haven't yet had the  
time to vet and apply the significant config file changes between 3.0  
and 3.1. 3.2? Forget about it! (Not stable enough for us yet anyway.)


On Oct 29, 2008, at 10:44, Leonid Geller wrote:

> In general I like how 3.2 has fewer jars to go around. Hessian is  
> the exception. It would be nice if all of Hessian code was factored  
> out into a separate library in 3.2.x, so we can drop it into other  
> containers, whether they are applications running 3.1.x or perhaps  
> third party apps like tomcat.
> Also it appears 3.2 is not backward compatible from config stand- 
> point. It is not enough to simply rename .conf to .xml, some  
> configuration elements that used to be optional are required now.  
> This raises the barrier to upgrade from 3.1.x to 3.2.x
> -Leonid
> -----Original Message-----
> ] On Behalf Of Emil Ong
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 12:36 PM
> To: General Discussion for the Resin application server
> Subject: [Resin-interest] 3.2 experience?
> Resin 3.2.1 is our latest release in the 3.2 branch, which is our
> development branch.  This branch still undergoes our extensive release
> testing, but has many changes which have not been quite as vetted  
> Resin
> 3.1 in production use.
> If you are using 3.2.0 or 3.2.1, what have your experiences been?
> Are you using it in production?  After testing, did you decide to
> use Resin 3.2. or to stick with Resin 3.1?  Why?  What did your  
> testing
> include?  What features do you like and what would you like to see?
> I appreciate any feedback you have to offer as we've gotten a few
> questions from people interested in using Resin 3.2, but want to hear
> from other folks who've kicked the tires a bit.
> Thanks,
> Emil

resin-interest mailing list

resin-interest mailing list

Reply via email to