None of the Hessian Flash versions should work with the latest Resin,
which includes many changes to the Hessian protocol. Take a look at
Hessian-interest from a couple of months ago. I'll be updating the
Hessian Flash to be compatible with the changes in 3.2.1, but that will
be a couple of
Emil Ong wrote:
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
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 04:55:48PM +, Stargazer wrote:
Emil Ong wrote:
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
As you may know, http://www.musicalpresence.com is in production with 3.2
All tests have been successful (utf-8, ejb, flex hessian). I kept 3.2
mostly because I needed some correction on hessian with flex.
Emil Ong wrote:
Resin 3.2.1 is our latest release in the 3.2 branch, which is our
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
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
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
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
