geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paul McMahan" <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r480329 - in /geronimo/server/trunk/configs: ./ client/ j2ee-1.4-specs/ j2ee-1.4-specs/src/ j2ee-1.4-specs/src/plan/ j2ee-server/ rmi-naming/
Date Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:20:07 GMT
I think it would be cool to be able to build mixed 1.4/JEE5 assemblies
but I'm not clear on how to make that happen without creating a
proliferation of modules, configs, and assemblies.  So I have been
working under the assumption that trunk is strictly for EE5 and that
any references to J2EE 1.4 artifacts will be upgraded in place.  If I
understand Joe's proposal correctly then he plans to overwrite
geronimo-jetty, geronimo-jetty-builder, etc to use jetty v6 instead of
merging them into trunk as they appear in sandbox, which would be in
line with my initial approach for tomcat v6 as well.  But that seems
to contradict the intent of GERONIMO-2604.  Will trunk continue to
support J2EE 1.4 and if so how will the src tree be organized?

Best wishes,

On 11/29/06, Joe Bohn <> wrote:
> David,
> I think this is a great idea.  However, I'm curious about the need for
> the 1.4 specs in trunk.  Do you envision this soon being replaced by a
> JavaEE5 specs car?   Should we just rename this now to be JavaEE5 and
> then update the individual specs contained within it?   Just curious on
> how you were thinking that we would handle the 1.4 to EE 5 move.
> I'd also like to get the Jetty6 implementation from the sandbox included
> in trunk soon.  Along the same lines as above, I assume that we would
> drop the "-jee5" suffixes as well as the "6" from the jetty artifacts
> and integrate these changes directly into the appropriate items in
> trunk.  Being that we now have a branch for 1.2 and trunk is building
> exclusively using 1.5 (both source and target) I don't think there is a
> need to continue to maintain the Jetty 5.* in trunk.  If you don't have
> any objects I'll be looking moving these changes into trunk with those
> assumptions.
> Joe

View raw message