+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 >>> [email protected] >>> http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> resin-interest mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> resin-interest mailing list >> [email protected] >> 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 > [email protected] > http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest > > > > _______________________________________________ > resin-interest mailing list > [email protected] > http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest _______________________________________________ resin-interest mailing list [email protected] http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/resin-interest
