Hai-Dang,
Would you be able to send a copy of your app so that we can further test
whether there is a bug in the redeploy?
Thanks,
Jay
David Jencks wrote:
> I agree about using "inPlace".
>
> I don't think your explanation of the redeploy error is accurate, since
> the original deploy, whether
I agree about using "inPlace".
I don't think your explanation of the redeploy error is accurate,
since the original deploy, whether onlne or offline should install
everything needed into the g. repo. So, there might be a bug in the
redeploy comand.
thanks
david jencks
On Dec 8, 2009, at
Hey Juergen,
Did you perhaps want to do an 'inPlace' deployment?
I think that might give you the result you are looking for.
Then changes to the contents of the /projekte/test directory would
affect the deployed app.
Otherwise, I believe that an offline deployment would cause your app to
be upl
Hi,
I played with web apps and G2.2 2009.11.28-05:33:51.600-0800
geronimo-tomcat6-javaee5-2.2
I have deployed an exploded webapp (see below) with
./deploy.sh -u system -p manager --offline deploy /projekte/test
I found that restarting the web app does not reflect changes in web.xml, not
even i
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Jay D. McHugh wrote:
> Hello Hai-Dang,
>
> It looks like the workaround that they were referring to was to simply
> bypass the test that failed in Tuscany.
>
> You would probably be able to get more help on this from the Tuscany
> mailing lists. But, apparently, the
Hello Hai-Dang,
It looks like the workaround that they were referring to was to simply
bypass the test that failed in Tuscany.
You would probably be able to get more help on this from the Tuscany
mailing lists. But, apparently, the issue has to do with the version of
OpenEJB that Tuscany is usin
