Thanks Adam for giving valuable input, I am sure developers will reply
to this thread :-)
Judy
Adam Bien wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
>