Thank you so much for the feedback, Lilly!

It would be absolutely fantastic if you could post any errors from the logs or 
describe what didn't work with the deployment of both #1 and #2 apps.

For #1, the Java EE TCK is good but you know how portability goes :)  Tens of 
thousands of tests and still some things are missed.  Identifying what things 
need to be covered will help us improve our own tests as well as contribute 
that feedback to the Java EE TCK team at Oracle.  Any details you have are 
incredibly appreciated.

For #2, we're definitely very interested in that information.  We do want 
Tomcat apps to work in TomEE without modification.  My gut is most of the 
issues will be around library conflicts due to the larger set of binaries in 
TomEE vs Tomcat.  Even in that regard there are likely things we can do if we 
are able to identify the libraries that conflict the most.  In the past we've 
had issues with ASM version conflicts (Hibernate uses ASM and we also use it 
for classpath scanning).  Eventually we repackaged ASM and, poof, problem gone. 
 Not the kind of thing you want to do to all your libraries, but something that 
can definitely be done if a library poses a common conflict.

Any details/logs appreciated!


-David


On Mar 15, 2012, at 9:01 AM, Lilly Wang wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I have been a Tomcat user for over 10 years. I like Tomcat, because it is 
> simple and easy to use, and it always making my web app working.
> 
> I like the idea of OpenEJB+Tomcat => Apache TomEE!
> 
> I expect:
> 
> 1)      my EE app will work with TomEE as easy as with Tomcat, but it seems 
> not.
> 
> 2)      and  my web app that has been working with Tomcat will still work 
> with TomEE. But it is  not!
> 
> I think it may be worthy to make some effort to let 1) work. But it is not 
> worthy to make effort to  let 2) work.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Lilly
> 
>  
> Dr Lilly Wang
> I-Net Plc
> Suite 608
> 68 Lombard Street
> London
> EC3V 9LJ
>  
> Email: [email protected]
> Website: www.inetplc.com
> Tel:  0844 993 9310
>  
>  
> 
>  
>  
> 

Reply via email to