Same here. We're still on 3.0 'cause we haven't found the time to port our configs to 3.1. Just got the 3.0 configs to a point where I liked 'em, too.
Saludos, Jose. On Oct 29, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Jean-Francois Lamy wrote: > 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 > Teximus > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [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.) > > Rob > > 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----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> ] 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@caucho.com > http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest > > > > _______________________________________________ > resin-interest mailing list > resin-interest@caucho.com > http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest _______________________________________________ resin-interest mailing list resin-interest@caucho.com http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest
