Sounds like a good thing to change for the next major version. From a user
point of view I think deploying the same EJB jar in two different web
applications should just work.
Best regards,
Tommy Tynjä
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro
jlmonte...@tomitribe.com wrote:
Was
The consensus is there.
Created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-1182
Thanks everyone.
JLouis
--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Tommy Tynjä to...@diabol.se wrote:
Sounds like a good
Good to see the feedback and I'm a definite +1 for changing the default.
I don't see an advantage to actually removing the old approach. It's maybe 30
lines of code. We'd end up writing more than that in emails explaining that it
was removed and what to do instead.
--
David Blevins
Hi,
Just to be clear.
The legacy binding does not affect neither TCK nor certification.
It won't affect Java EE 6 applications.
And I don't want to remove the support right now. I just want to change the
default behavior and only bind java ee 6 names instead of legacy one + java
ee 6.
But
Perfectly clear, was just thinking aloud and wondering if removing in a future
version is possible. If the TCK is happy then we're all happy ;-)
--
Andy Gumbrecht http://www.tomitribe.com
TomEE treibt Tomitribe!
Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse my brevity.
On April 18, 2014 9:37:36 AM
they will be removed (alsmot) for sure in tomee 2 but I don't think
we'll do it in tomee 1.x
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-04-18 10:29 GMT+02:00 Andy
Was thinking the same this morning.
Le 18 avr. 2014 11:23, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com a écrit
:
they will be removed (alsmot) for sure in tomee 2 but I don't think
we'll do it in tomee 1.x
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
+1
There should also be a point where dropping legacy (and the code that
goes with it) should occur. If someone is using something 'really' old
then they are unlikely to upgrade the server anyway.
The hard bit is deciding what is 'old'.
How does dropping things like that affect the TCK?
How
someone is us too ;)
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-04-17 10:33 GMT+02:00 Andy Gumbrecht agumbre...@tomitribe.com:
+1
There should also be a point
That's true :-) , and I'd not upgrade a server where I really need that
legacy support. I'd rather look at improving the app to use new stuff.
It's still the question of TCK. Does is test the legacy stuff, i.e. will
it need the flag 'on' to pass?
On 17/04/2014 10:34, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Hi guys,
I would like to get your opinion on the legacy names support.
Since Java EE 6, JNDI names are (more or less) standardized. It's fine.
To help users upgrade from OpenEJB to TomEE, we still bind legacy names to
JNDI which is also fine from a user point of view. At least it was IMHO.
But
11 matches
Mail list logo
