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
