I must admit that there are some "non-compatible" changes in the config,
AND the Api (in particular ejb syntax).
But from my point of view, this comes because Caucho provide tools
really efficients before they are completely defined by the community.
There is good and bad in everything.
I never found difficult to upgrade, except that it costs... for all the
changes we have to make, and the time to find the new syntax.
This process have been difficult for me because it was at a time where
the docs were in unstable state. For instance there was a clickable
index of config tags in 3.0 documentation, that disappeared for months
(no more clickable).
Now it's back, and it seems that the new 3.2 doc is really good.
Jose Quinteiro wrote:
> 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.
> 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
>> defaults best approximate the old behaviour.
>> Jean-François Lamy
>> -----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.)
>> 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
>>> -----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
>>> testing, but has many changes which have not been quite as vetted
>>> 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
>>> 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.
>> resin-interest mailing list
>> resin-interest mailing list
> resin-interest mailing list
Architecte du Logiciel
resin-interest mailing list