Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-user-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 63673 invoked by uid 500); 3 May 2001 03:36:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Reply-To: ant-user@jakarta.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ant-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 63662 invoked from network); 3 May 2001 03:36:09 -0000 Message-ID: <0373D1CCF679D411A80300B0D03DE06FCE7FD6@CHALFONT> From: Andrew Thompson To: "'ant-user@jakarta.apache.org'" Subject: RE: Optional jar snapshot Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 04:32:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0D381.BC3D4DB0" X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0D381.BC3D4DB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" >From: Conor MacNeill >I have built a recent snapshot of the optional jar. This is a more Hi Conor, I believe from your earlier mail that this changes the task to use Weblogic 6's new ejb2.0 compiler/persistance layer rather than the wl5.1/ejb1.1 ejb compiler? We're using the 5.1 persistance layer with wl6.0, mostly because we don't trust new code for something so major until its had at least a couple of service packs, and we know the 5.1 stuff works. So... for us this would be a big problem with ant 1.4, if we were forced to use the new ejbc (or can it handle 5.1 and 6.0 stuff?). Perhaps adding a target="" attribute to the weblogic element would allow selection of the compiler to use in an elegant fashion. Or is this a non-issue? AndyT... ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0D381.BC3D4DB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Optional jar snapshot

>From: Conor MacNeill
>I have built a recent snapshot of the optional = jar. This is a more

Hi Conor,

I believe from your earlier mail that this changes = the <weblogic> task to use Weblogic 6's new ejb2.0 = compiler/persistance layer rather than the wl5.1/ejb1.1 ejb = compiler?

We're using the 5.1 persistance layer with wl6.0, = mostly because we don't trust new code for something so major until its = had at least a couple of service packs, and we know the 5.1 stuff = works.

So... for us this would be a big problem with ant = 1.4, if we were forced to use the new ejbc (or can it handle 5.1 and = 6.0 stuff?). Perhaps adding a target=3D"" attribute to the = weblogic element would allow selection of the compiler to use in an = elegant fashion. Or is this a non-issue?

AndyT...

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0D381.BC3D4DB0--