to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Pete Beck
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:25 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-user] Is 4.0 new or evolution of 3.2?
>
>
> On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 15:07, Bill Burke wrote:
> > J2EE is our bread and butter. We
On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 15:07, Bill Burke wrote:
> J2EE is our bread and butter. We will still be improving our J2EE
> implementation and strictly following the J2EE specifications. If you don't
> want to use our new AOP services, then don't use them.
The use of AOP sounds very interesting. Do yo
ss-user] Is 4.0 new or evolution of 3.2?
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bill Burke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 9:49 AM
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-user] Is 4.0 new or evolution of 3.2?
>
>
> &
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Burke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 9:49 AM
Subject: RE: [JBoss-user] Is 4.0 new or evolution of 3.2?
> Why not create an MBean with this information? Or another EJB that
holds
&g
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Burke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 10:07 AM
Subject: RE: [JBoss-user] Is 4.0 new or evolution of 3.2?
> J2EE is our bread and butter. We will still be improving our J2EE
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Meyer-Willner, Bernhard
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 7:11 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] Is 4.0 new or evolution of 3.2?
>
>
&
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Pete Beck
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:33 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-user] Is 4.0 new or evolution of 3.2?
>
>
> On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 22:31,
AIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Guy
> Rouillier
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 11:10 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] Is 4.0 new or evolution of 3.2?
>
>
> Bill, thank you for taking the time to explain in depth the major
> architectural changes fo
Bill,
you write in your mail "Is 4.0 new or evolution of 3.2?":
"In 4.0, we want to generalize interceptor technology and detached
invocations so that any
type of object or any plain old Java Class can leverage these technologies.
We want to bring J2EE services transparently and implicitly to pla
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 22:31, Bill Burke wrote:
> So the goals of 4.0 are as follows:
...
> 2. Bring J2EE services to plain old java classes through our AOP framework
I've seen this mentioned elsewhere, but I don't quite understand it.
Are you saying that for example, you would be able to take an
2003 5:31 PM
Subject: RE: [JBoss-user] Is 4.0 new or evolution of 3.2?
> In 4.0 we will be finalizing JMX as our lightweight component model.
One of
> the problems with the 3.x series though is that cool features like
client
> and server side interceptors and detached Invokers (aka plugg
In 4.0 we will be finalizing JMX as our lightweight component model. One of
the problems with the 3.x series though is that cool features like client
and server side interceptors and detached Invokers (aka pluggable
transports) were written around EJBs and the EJB container. In 4.0, we want
to ge
If you're asking whether technology will ever stop evolving long enough to
be on the latest, greatest release of a product for an extended period of
time, the answer is no. :-)
Peter Callies
McKesson Information Solutions
Transaction Solutions Hub
-Original Message-
From: Guy Rouillier [
13 matches
Mail list logo
