quality@glassfish.java.net

Re: Thinking about GF v3 Default Packaging

From: Adam Bien <abien_at_adam-bien.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:33:02 +0200

Hi Judy,

Judy Tang schrieb:
> Hi Adam,
>
> Good topic. Hope others can share your view :-)
>
> It is good for GF v3 to provide different Packaging. Which one should
> be default, may be most used one ?
This would be really interesting. Most of the GF v2 projects I know, are
using the EJB container. Otherwise they would go rather with Tomcat or
Jetty...

One solution would be to provide different, pre-bundled profiles from
e.g. portal. Then GF would be even leaer, because JRuby guys would get
only the JRuby support etc.

regards,

adam
>
> Thanks,
> Judy
>
> Adam Bien wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> GF v3 is intended to be Java EE 6 RI. But it comes with JRuby, but
>> not with EJB 3.1 per default. Isn't it strange?
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> adam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: quality-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: quality-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: quality-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: quality-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>
>


-- 
 Consultant, Author, Java Champion
 
 Homepage: www.adam-bien.com
 Weblog: blog.adam-bien.com
 eMail:  abien_at_adam-bien.com
 Mobile: 0049(0)170 280 3144
 Books: Enterprise Architekturen (ISBN: 393504299X),
        Java EE 5 Architekturen  (ISBN: 3939084247),
        J2EE Patterns, J2EE Hotspots, Enterprise Frameworks and Struts