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 definitely, users can still activate the binding with a simple property.
JLouis
--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
<[email protected]>wrote:
> No
>
> legacy stuff is not specified at all
>
>
> 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 10:48 GMT+02:00 Andy Gumbrecht <[email protected]>:
> > 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:
> >>
> >> 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 <[email protected]>:
> >>>
> >>> +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 heavy is the old stuff weighing on the new stuff?
> >>>
> >>> Andy.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 16/04/2014 11:19, Jean-Louis Monteiro 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 now, since almost everybody uses CollapsedEAR, they only deploy
> WARs
> >>>> with JARs in TomEE.
> >>>>
> >>>> A few of them still want to fight with EAR packaging even through
> there
> >>>> is
> >>>> still a need to sometimes share a business logic across more than one
> >>>> webapp.
> >>>>
> >>>> In that case, they usually deploy the same business jar into 2
> different
> >>>> webapps in TomEE.
> >>>> That leads to JNDI exception because previous (legacy) names where not
> >>>> unique in the application server, whereas with new Java EE 6 names, it
> >>>> should work.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Long story short, I would like to change the default settings to not
> >>>> bind
> >>>> legacy names by default so that out of the box, deploying the same EJB
> >>>> JAR
> >>>> into 2 different webapps must work.
> >>>>
> >>>> If users still want to bind legacy names, never mind they can just
> >>>> activate
> >>>> the property in the system.properties file.
> >>>>
> >>>> WDYT?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> >>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>> Andy Gumbrecht
> >>>
> >>> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >>> [email protected]
> >>> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
> >>>
> >>> TomEE treibt Tomitribe! | http://tomee.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Andy Gumbrecht
> >
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> > [email protected]
> > https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe
> >
> > TomEE treibt Tomitribe! | http://tomee.apache.org
> >
>
