Hi James,
I guess this was supposed to go to the dev ML?
Benedikt
2013/7/28 James Carman jcar...@savoirtech.com
All,
I would doubt the remoting providers are really used by anyone, but we
should probably ask before removing them. We currently support the
following remoting protocols:
Well, I wanted a broader audience, since it would impact users (if
there are any).
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org wrote:
Hi James,
I guess this was supposed to go to the dev ML?
Benedikt
2013/7/28 James Carman jcar...@savoirtech.com
All,
I would
Okay so you intended to send it to the dev ML and the user ML once? Because
it appears that you've send it to the user ML twice instead ;-)
Benedikt
2013/7/29 James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com
Well, I wanted a broader audience, since it would impact users (if
there are any).
On Mon,
I did not intent to send it twice at all! :) I actually sent it from
two different accounts. It didn't go through the first time, because
the first account is not registered (someone must have moderated it
through, though).
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Benedikt Ritter brit...@apache.org
Guilty ;-)
On Jul 29, 2013 6:26 AM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
I did not intent to send it twice at all! :) I actually sent it from
two different accounts. It didn't go through the first time, because
the first account is not registered (someone must have moderated it
All,
I would doubt the remoting providers are really used by anyone, but we should
probably ask before removing them. We currently support the following remoting
protocols:
- Burlap
- Hessian
- Jax-RPC
- RMI
- Session Beans
Are there any objections to removing them? These technologies are
