+1

On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Jean-Francois Lamy wrote:

> I still don't see why old config files stop working.  I can still  
> configure
> Log4j using log4j.properties even though there are newer/better  
> config file
> formats.  Config files for production sites are tricky, and testing  
> them is
> very painstaking. The pain factor for people that manage many sites  
> is quite
> high.
>
> Jean-François Lamy
> Teximus
> C : +1 514 992-2759
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Riccardo  
> Cohen
> Envoyé : 30 octobre 2008 05:14
> À : General Discussion for the Resin application server
> Objet : Re: [Resin-interest] 3.2 experience?
>
> 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.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Riccardo Cohen
> Architecte du Logiciel
> http://www.architectedulogiciel.fr
> +33 (0)6.09.83.64.49
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to