Feel free to! I'll test the information further per my other post on
this thread.
Original Message
Subject: Re: Geronimo 1.1 to 2.1/ J2EE to JEE(5)
From: Jason Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, February 26, 2008 8:49 pm
To: user@geronimo.apache.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED
Subject: Geronimo 1.1 to 2.1/ J2EE to JEE(5)
From: Mark Aufdencamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, February 26, 2008 3:00 pm
To: user@geronimo.apache.org
As I a haven't seen this specifically identified, I thought I'd outline
my thoughts and have them confirmed. Everyones comments
to
start playing with an EJB 3.0 model branch moving forward with my
applications back end code.
Has anyone developed/deployed an EAR with a EJB 2.1 Project and a EJB
3.0 Project component?
Thanks to all for the 411
Original Message
Subject: Geronimo 1.1 to 2.1/ J2EE to JEE(5
3.0 model branch moving forward with my
applications back end code.
Has anyone developed/deployed an EAR with a EJB 2.1 Project and a EJB
3.0 Project component?
Thanks to all for the 411
Original Message
Subject: Geronimo 1.1 to 2.1/ J2EE to JEE(5)
From
As I a haven't seen this specifically identified, I thought I'd outline
my thoughts and have them confirmed. Everyones comments are appreciated
I'm presuming no required changes to the codebase. The only requirement
to port a J2EE Geronimo 1.1 Enterprise Application to run as a JEE
Geronimo
Great collection Mark, we'll make sure to add it to the 2.1 doc
Thanks a bunch
Cheers!
Hernan
Mark Aufdencamp wrote:
As I a haven't seen this specifically identified, I thought I'd outline
my thoughts and have them confirmed. Everyones comments are appreciated
I'm presuming no required
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Mark Aufdencamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To port a J2EE Enterprise Application from Geronimo 1.1 to a JEE(5)
Enterprise Application on Geronimo 2.0/2.1
Does it mean that without these changes one would not be able to
migrate an ear from Geronimo 1.1 to
Mark,
I've been working on putting together some migration documentation for 2.1.
This seems like great information for these documents. Would you mind if I
included it?
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Jacek Laskowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Mark
