Thanks for all the discussions!
It seems the main concern that the earlier versions of the NB packaging
the application incorrectly is not much of an issue. The problem only
happens when the earlier versions of the NB was used together with maven
(maven ignores the manifest entry) which will have far less impact.
So my current plan is to keep the default behavior as it is, but make
additional changes to provide a way for autodeploy (and JSR88) to
specify this property. We certainly encourage the users to re-package
the application the spec defined way, but we are not forcing it (that's
why we have this property). And we will try to provide useful warnings
for the cases where we could detect such packaging.
Thanks,
- Hong
Sahoo wrote:
>
>
> Tim Quinn wrote:
>
>>> I still don't see how we can force users to package the app in one
>>> particular way.
>>
>> I don't think anyone suggested that. If you're thinking about my
>> note to Vince earlier, I described an approach that's probably better
>> from a design and information hiding point of view. I did not say we
>> should impose that or any approach on users.
>
>
> I am not saying you suggested the packaging was wrong. I thought one
> of the reasons this whole thread was started was because v3 rejected
> deployment of such apps unless compatibility=v2 mode was not enabled.
> If that's not the case, I am confused why we raised NB packaging issue
> to start with.
>
> Sahoo
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>