Sorry for the delay on this, but I just caught an issue on the site...
"Daily Drivers" for J2G
Unofficial daily drivers are available for download here.
The URL points to the eclipse plugins directory at http://people.apache.org/dist/geronimo/eclipse/unstable/ rather than the j2g section at
In addition to this, the version up there for j2g is horribly dated, and not functional to the best of my knowledge. There is currently one attached to the wiki that could be uploaded in place, if you have sufficient access to do so (I am unfamiliar)
Hi Erik, Jason and Viet, Today I've updated the "Apache Geronimo Development
Tools Subproject" website (below) to include the latest information about the
new release of the Geronimo Eclipse Plugin.
I've also included some information about the J2G Migration tool from some of
the notes in this thread. Since I don't know a lot about this new tool, I'm
hoping you all might review what I have thus far to see if it's kinda what you
all had envisioned. Also, every Sunday I push out the latest trunk build of the
Geronimo Eclipse plugin to our unstable site (below). I've assumed it's okay to
do the same for the J2G plugin as well and have listed it in the downloads
Erik B. Craig wrote:
> After the recent round of changes and improvements around j2g (usable
> from within the Eclipse IDE UI, Annotations support, improved
> logging/information output, support for EJB 3), as well as a bit of
> interest out in the general open source community in moving applications
> from Jboss to Geronimo (such as today's inquiry on theserverside.com
> <http://theserverside.com>), I feel as though it would be of some
> benefit to have j2g, at least the content in our confluence wiki (
> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC20/j2g-migration-tool.html) linked
> somewhere on the actual geronimo homepage. I was thinking either as it's
> own link under 'Subprojects', much as Development Tools, GBuild, or
> XBean are situated, or as an addition inside the Development Tools page,
> much as the current Eclipse Plug-in section rests within there.
> I am willing to commit to doing a bit of additional writing (beyond what
> is on the wiki) if it were to be under it's own section, or a subsection
> of development tools if necessary, but I think it would be good to get
> it up and out there sooner rather than later, especially to coincide
> with the recent release of 2.0.1 to perhaps show those out there
> remotely interested in migrating, there are tools available to assist
> and perhaps 'hold their hand' a bit.
> Thoughts? Comments? Objections?
> Erik B. Craig