Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL

http://tomee.apache.org/developer/migration/tomee-1-to-7.html intends to solve that issue, we can add any point we hit/encounter what else would be a blocker to make 1 EOL in June 2018? Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL

2017-06-18 19:50 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg : > regarding migration. > There are 3 different main use cases afaict. > 1.) TomEE standalone server, quite like Tomcat. Using 7.x instead 1.7.x > should be a no-brainer without any need to change something within your > application > > 2.) tomee-maven-plu

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL

regarding migration. There are 3 different main use cases afaict. 1.) TomEE standalone server, quite like Tomcat. Using 7.x instead 1.7.x should be a no-brainer without any need to change something within your application 2.) tomee-maven-plugin: change the groupId from org.apache.openejb to org

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL

I’d be -1 for any kind of EOL of 1.7 right now. -- David Blevins http://twitter.com/dblevins http://www.tomitribe.com > On Jun 6, 2017, at 8:58 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > > Hi guys, > > it is harder and harder to maintain 1.x branch since almost no library is > maintained. Request is al

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL

2017-06-18 18:42 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore : > Thanks for the feedback. I think at least some sort of migration guide is > needed as some settings have changed. It would be nice for people to find > out the easy way. Happy to discuss in another thread, but we should agree > when this will appea

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL

Thanks for the feedback. I think at least some sort of migration guide is needed as some settings have changed. It would be nice for people to find out the easy way. Happy to discuss in another thread, but we should agree when this will appear. I also think some visibility on what the EOL statemen

Re: The EE8 Roadmap

mvc too is under radar, think cxf is a good fit but myfaces can be good too since we have web experts here Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github

Re: The EE8 Roadmap

I think it would be great to start a project in any form for the security spec. John On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 11:35 AM Mark Struberg wrote: > Or a subproject somewhere if we create it from scratch and don't take over > any existing sources where the IP is not 100% guaranteed to be clear. > > Lie

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL

2017-06-18 17:36 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Gallimore : > On 18 Jun 2017 3:11 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" > wrote: > > @Jon: please propose a policy then (same as rejecting a release, "no" is > valid only if an alternative is proposed or a string blocker is found ;)). > > > I feel I stated my concerns pret

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL

On 18 Jun 2017 3:11 pm, "Romain Manni-Bucau" wrote: @Jon: please propose a policy then (same as rejecting a release, "no" is valid only if an alternative is proposed or a string blocker is found ;)). I feel I stated my concerns pretty clearly. I didn't just reply -1 and walk away, which is what

Re: The EE8 Roadmap

Or a subproject somewhere if we create it from scratch and don't take over any existing sources where the IP is not 100% guaranteed to be clear. LieGrue, strub > Am 18.06.2017 um 16:01 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau : > > first step would probably be to create an incubator project to impl the spec

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL

@Jon: please propose a policy then (same as rejecting a release, "no" is valid only if an alternative is proposed or a string blocker is found ;)). Realisticly 1.7 is no more maintained (the cxf coming exceptional release doesn't help since all the stack is outdated now and coming to EOL and react

Re: The EE8 Roadmap

first step would probably be to create an incubator project to impl the spec Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL

So probably one more 1.7.x release and then let it fade out? LieGrue, strub > Am 18.06.2017 um 13:55 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore > : > > I object. There are plenty of folks still using 1.7.x, and we've ported > over various fixes from master without too much trouble. > > My concern is that t

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL

I object. There are plenty of folks still using 1.7.x, and we've ported over various fixes from master without too much trouble. My concern is that those on 1.7.x might be concerned to see it EOL'd. I'd like to see the upgrade path documented and a policy on fixes applied to 1.7.x documented and d

Re: The EE8 Roadmap

Well, that would be way cool! LieGrue, strub > Am 18.06.2017 um 11:54 schrieb Rudy De Busscher : > > Great news > > What are the plans for the Security API? It will also be included in the > Web Profile. > > I can help with the implementation if you like. > > Best regards > Rudy > > > On

Re: The EE8 Roadmap

Great news What are the plans for the Security API? It will also be included in the Web Profile. I can help with the implementation if you like. Best regards Rudy On 17 June 2017 at 21:57, Mark Struberg wrote: > FYI, With help from Romain, Reinhard Sandtner, Gerhard Petracek and John > Amen

Re: [DISCUSS] 1.x EOL

if noone objects before tomorrow i'll update the site with that policy then. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn