[jboss-dev] Re: Fwd: AS 5 Beta 2 Discussion

[Andrig T Miller]

Perhaps.  That just depends on the CTS testing, and other testing that
we will do.

Andy

On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 14:40 +0000, Manik Surtani wrote:

> Sure, but in reality, would this be the 'final', only renamed as
> something else (EJB 2.99?) to get around the licensing issue?
> 
> --
> Manik Surtani
> 
> 
> Lead, JBoss Cache
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> 
> 
> Email: manik at jboss.org
> Telephone: +44 7786 702 706
> MSN: manik at surtani.org
> Yahoo/AIM/Skype: maniksurtani
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 30 Nov 2006, at 17:28, Andrig T Miller wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > No, it does not, just a supportable release.  We actually cannot
> > call our EJB 3 final in AS 4.2, due to the licensing issues.  The
> > only final will be in AS 5.
> > 
> > Andy
> > 
> > On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 18:05 -0600, Galder Zamarreno wrote: 
> > 
> > > Does this mean there’ll be a final EJB3 release for AS 4.2?
> > > 
> > > Galder Zamarreño
> > > Sr. Software Maintenance Engineer
> > > JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> > > 
> > > IT executives: Red Hat still #1 for value
> > > http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >                                  
> > > __________________________________________________________________
> > > 
> > > From:jboss-development-bounces at lists.jboss.org
> > > [mailto:jboss-development-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of
> > > Andrig T Miller
> > > Sent: 29 November 2006 23:05
> > > To: Scott M Stark
> > > Cc: Scott M Stark; JBoss.org development list; JavaEE-TCK; Ivelin
> > > Ivanov
> > > Subject: [jboss-dev] Re: Fwd: AS 5 Beta 2 Discussion
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > I agree.  In fact, we specifically created 4.2 for these types of
> > > issues.  With the inclusion of EJB 3 in 4.2 as fully supported
> > > technology, we should make this as clean as possible.
> > > 
> > > Andy
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 11:11 -0800, Scott M Stark wrote: 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > Yes, its work to align the remoting uses. This has to be done for
> > > jboss5, and ejb3 pulls this issue into 4.2. I don't see keeping the
> > > legacy remoting layers as default as beneficial for 4.2.
> > >  
> > > Tom Elrod wrote:
> > > >> 2. A related issue is alignment on jboss-remoting transports. There was
> > > >> a jira issue to make the pooled invoker the default. The real question
> > > >> is why don't we move to the unified invoker based on remoting to align
> > > >> the transports between 4.2/5/ejb3.
> > > > 
> > > > I was thinking the main reason we didn't switch to using unified
> > > > invokers for 4.x was due to needing to update docs and training
> > > > materials (since config would be completely different).  However, if
> > > > this is not an issue and would prefer to switch default to be unified
> > > > invoker for 4.2, the change to standardjboss.xml, jboss-service.xml,
> > > > and cluster-service.xml is simple (but still have the issue of where
> > > > else needs to be changed, such as client user tx, testsuite, jmx
> > > > invoker, etc.).
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Andrig (Andy) Miller
> > > VP, Engineering
> > > JBoss, a division of Red Hat 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > Andrig (Andy) Miller
> > VP, Engineering
> > JBoss, a division of Red Hat 
> 
> 

Andrig (Andy) Miller
VP, Engineering
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jboss-development/attachments/20061201/2ac36adb/attachment.html