I do understand the jetty issue. In that case I would avoid dropping a jetty that's a major change into a minor release, but that's tough to sync!
As to the case of rmi incompatibility, I can't really say much because I really don't know the root cause, I don't think that one was jetty. In fact, since most people tend to use beans and clients on the same box, maybe it's just not a problem for many. My app is a bit bastardized, making an ejb for the sake of providing a service, but I like the idea better than just rmi (which it used to be). rick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jules Gosnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 9:40 PM Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] Revision thoughts > Unfortunately, Jetty development takes place in another CVS repository, > whose branches and releases do not map directly onto the same in JBoss. > This is because Jetty is a project in it's own right. (jetty.mortbay.org) > > Trying to tease out individual fixes in order to check them into each > branch is impractical - I simply take a drop of the latest release, > which includes all required bug-fixes and more, and check it into the > release. > > If all development took place in the same tree, what you ask would be > reasonable - however .... > > > Jules > > > > Rick LaBanca wrote: > > Wondering what others think about this issue (may be minor to most of you!) > > > > I use 3.0.0. If I want to run 3.0.1 or 3.0.2, I can't do it just by > > plopping in my wars/config. This is because some of the settingshave > > changed (jetty packaged differently, jetty config for setting dirallowed > > is different). > > > > Also, a 3.0.1 or 3.0.2 client can't talk to 3.0.0 servers as far as rmi > > under ejb goes, in my case anyway. I suspect an internal class shot over > > rmi changed, because my objects haven't and should have the same signature. > > > > I have no problem with either of these, jboss just keeps getting > > better. But I would like it if only compatible bug fixes and compatable > > packaging changes got into .0.0.n revs. In other words make sure an > > a.b.c can communicate with an a.b.x. > > > > This may be nitpicking, especially when getting something so good for > > free! But it's more than the rev numbers. It is nice to have a software > > life cycle where useful fixes get rolled into compatable revs, and > > incompatable changes/features get put off (3.2). I really neede the > > circularity fix, but really can't use .1 or .2 because of needing the > > server to stay put right now.... waddya think? > > > > Rick > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > JBoss-user mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
