David,
Not sure how to understand that post content.
IMO, a @Local annotation (without any interface specified) on the bean
class is not allowed by the spec.
JLouis
2012/6/4 David Blevins
>
> On Jun 3, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Marco de Booij wrote:
> > @Local
> > @Stateless(name="I18nCodeManager")
>
I distinctly remember having seen the combo @Local @Stateless
in a Glassfish tutorial a few years ago, because I copied from
that tutorial and used the code for a while (in Glassfish 2.1)
until I ran into some unrelated problem that made me rewrite
all my annotations.
--
Björn Danielsson
Cuspy Co
David,
Thanks for the feedback.
Good news! This build got a 100% pass on jdk1.7.0_04 linux 32bit.
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/apache/openejb/apache-tomee/1.1.0-SNAPSHOT/apache-tomee-1.1.0-20120602.040901-9-webprofile.tar.gz
I haven't yet tested the releas
Hello,
I am facing strange following problem when using application.xml in my EAR
file.
1. I am using maven to build EAR which contains JAR with EJB components and
one web application WAR
2. Maven automatically creates application.xml in the META-INF of my EAR
3. When deploying EAR on TomEE+ 1.0
Hi,
first can you try the lastest snapshot please:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/apache/openejb/apache-tomee/1.1.0-SNAPSHOT/
do you put your ejbmodule in your webapp too?
any chance you share a sample to reproduce?
- Romain
2012/6/4 almos
> Hello,
>
> I am
My 2c on this:
If Glassfish is passing EE6 but has this bug, TomEE should allow this bug.
Obviously this is an EE6 suite bug that isn't being checked for yet, since
Glassfish is passing. However the test should be added to the EE6 suite in
the future so we need to be prepared for it.
TomEE
hmm,
personnally (you probably know) i have no issue doing something not in the
spec but here i don't find it logical, i even don't understand it at all.
If there is no interface that's obviously local (even localbean is weird by
the way).
Aligning on RI is not always good...aligning just to say
Agreed, but if it "makes it work", I personally prefer that, at least until
you have 50%+ of the market.
It's a really interesting topic really.
"Making it work" helps tomee become easier to use.
It's a bad "design decision", but good for "business".
From what I see often, people like things
... and the reason people are using that bad coding style (according to
earlier emails) is that there are apparently some bad examples out there.
Bad examples hurt - but they get reproduced, blogged, liked on FB, tweeted
and +1'd.
We often have a similar issue here with people using DBCP pool
Hi,
I think the "works there, should work also on TomEE" should be aplied to
JBoss AS examples, not only Glassfish ones. TomEE could even log a
warning alerting it is bad style, against the spec, or doesn't makes
sense. But working "out of the box" is a must IMHO. I'd also like a
switch for "
For me I would say not to add a bug to get market share. A bug is a bug
and should be fixed. It is better to create a simple working example
that follows the rules. People like me who try to create applications
with only a limited knowledge depend on examples and help like Neale
says. We run ar
On Jun 3, 2012, at 11:22 PM, georgenis wrote:
> Thanks for that hint :-) I am a JEE beginner.
>
> My Class is an EJB ;-) I fixed it in "persistence.xml" with Transaction-Type
> = "JTA".
Glad it's working. Feel free to lean on the list as much as you like while
learning. :)
That "jpa concepts
On Jun 4, 2012, at 6:11 AM, Fernando Lozano wrote:
> David,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
>> Good news! This build got a 100% pass on jdk1.7.0_04 linux 32bit.
>>
>
> jdk1.4.0_04 means Oracle JDK, right?
Correct.
> I wonder, are you required to run the TCK using Oracle JDK or could you as
i "understand" but I know we'll not agree
i don't want tomee to be popular because glassfish examples work! To be
honest i don't really care about glassfish, i like Tomcat and that's one
big part of why i like TomEE.
by the way
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/trunk/openejb/examples/local-
Great discussion!
Note, I'm also having this exact same discussion with the JBoss folks who are
also facing the same issue.
We'll be working this out with GlassFish and likely making some clarifications
or changes in EJB 3.2.
On Jun 4, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Neale Rudd wrote:
> If Glassfish is pas
On Jun 4, 2012, at 2:07 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO wrote:
> Not sure how to understand that post content.
> IMO, a @Local annotation (without any interface specified) on the bean
> class is not allowed by the spec.
Exactly right. On deploy we flagged it and failed the deployment with a clear
erro
Hi,
Note that the TCK license agreement explicitly mentions such flags.
They are allowed but must be on by default. The default settings must
be compliant. -David
Curious how JBoss AS was certified and used to be non-compliant on the
default configuration. At least this was the case with AS
On Jun 4, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Fernando Lozano wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Note that the TCK license agreement explicitly mentions such flags. They are
>> allowed but must be on by default. The default settings must be compliant.
>> -David
>
> Curious how JBoss AS was certified and used to be non-complia
I understand the good intentions but have to disagree that you should allow a
bug just because glassfish also allows it. At what point do you look at a
container and say, they allow this therefore I should also allow it so its
easier for them to migrate to my container? Why select only glassfish?
Agreed
I understand the good intentions but have to disagree that you should allow a
bug just because glassfish also allows it. At what point do you look at a
container and say, they allow this therefore I should also allow it so its
easier for them to migrate to my container? Why select only g
20 matches
Mail list logo
