So at least we need to align openejb and tomee...or proove se can release
more often :(
Le 30 oct. 2013 19:03, "David Blevins" a écrit :
> I'd opt for simply going with TomEE 2.0 and OpenEJB 5.0.
>
> We tried keeping OpenEJB locked to the EJB version number and it got very
> hard and they eventua
I'd opt for simply going with TomEE 2.0 and OpenEJB 5.0.
We tried keeping OpenEJB locked to the EJB version number and it got very hard
and they eventually fell out of synch. There's only a new Java EE version
every 3.5 years and I suspect the next one will be more like 4.
I think we'll regret
1.6.0 is mandatory, this thread was just about the TomEE targetting
JavaEE 7 (1.6 targets JavaEE 6)
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2013/10/29 Alex The Rocker :
Hi,
Just to make sure, this dicussion won't affect the versioning of the
official TomEE version based on current 1.6.0 snapshots, so that the next
version to be officialized is 1.6.0, right?
After 1.6.0, I'd say, use whatever you like, but for the short term keeping
1.6.0 would be best for my com
@Andy: basically you are right but the point is today the same guys
are working on these projects so splitting them will create more work
(it is already hard enough to get a release, we had been forked so
much time because of it in companies)
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rm
I'm happy to get versions aligned with each other, especially for maven
simplification. I'd prefer to keep our own logical version though, so
I'd opt for 2.0.
However, I would probably rock the boat with suggesting OpenEJB and
TomEE could be separated into their own trunks/versions?
I use O
ge in context:
> http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/TomEE-next-version-number-thought-tp4665729p4665755.html
> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Same version as Java EE implementation sounds good and easier to understand
for users.
--
View this message in context:
http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/TomEE-next-version-number-thought-tp4665729p4665755.html
Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hmm,
Not sure Tomcat guys wants it. Don't forget OpenEJB needs to run in
standalone without Tomcat. Tomcat needs to stay naked too for a bunch
of cases.
Merging both in a single trunk would be hard too since build techno
and code "rules" are really different.
BTW would be interesting to get Tomc
Of course, another, more krass idea would be to merge TomEE and Tomcat
and make it one Java EE 7 compliant Tomcat server. There's more brand
recognition in Tomcat and elevating IT to Java EE Full profile would
have a huge impact on the project, guaranteed.
On 10/25/2013 10:54 AM, Romain Manni-
Hmm, would make using mvn-release-plugin harder, if possible we need
to keep a.b.c pattern.
Maybe we can just do a poll and get rid of openejb now...
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://git
Another thought I would like to throw out there, since TomEE and Tomcat
are directly related, would be to align the version of TomEE with the
shipped version of Tomcat + some denominator for the underlying tech
version of openejb, since that is a driving factor of TomEE.
That would make it som
OpenEJB are a single project and the only liberty we have today is the
version (we can't rename openejb-* to tomee-*, it would impact too
much people, even for a a major).
Having both versions distinct makes things really hard.
So either we rename openejb-* to tomee-* and don't care about users
f
I'm thinking slightly different here.
I believe that versioning should stick with the actual product's version
and not necessarily align with any bundled technologies or a spec
version. I believe it will confuse people more than anything.
Look for example at GlassFish. It just keeps increment
Aligning TomEE versioning with JavaEE sounds good to me.
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> a bit too early (since we need 1.6) but thought a bit on next tomee
> version number.
>
> 2 seems natural but it would mean openejb and tomee version would
> still be dif
Hi,
a bit too early (since we need 1.6) but thought a bit on next tomee
version number.
2 seems natural but it would mean openejb and tomee version would
still be different. It would be great to align both to get a better
build and remove some hacks to get the version (+ we could use mvn
release
16 matches
Mail list logo
