http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/Dev-Replacing-JOTM-and-Carol-tp167754p167766.html
Just to clear up one point real quick: the move to Geronimo 1.0 won't help with the JDK 1.5 issues. It turns out that Geronimo 1.0 does not support Java 1.5 and must run on a Java 1.4 series JVM right now... That should change with the next release of Geronimo (due out soon?). With Geronimo from their SVN repository it is evidently possible but requires modifications as OpenEJB has some 1.4 dependent stuff stuff (not that we need it... hence one possible route for modifications if someone had enough free time...).
> David,
>
>
>
> My two cents are that it may be OK to lose some flexibility (as you
> mentioned earlier in March) and move on since a lot depends upon this
> change (license, JDK version etc.).
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Vinay Agarwal
>
>
>
> So, we could ship with Geronimo instead of the container stuff, but we
> have various classpath issues to resolve. We could take all of the third
> party libraries we use and put them under the geronimo/ repository
> directory using their directory organization conventions, and then in
> the OFBiz build have it drop all jars it makes under the
> geronimo/repository directory, and then refer to those in probably 2
> EARs (one for framework, one for application that would depend on the
> framework EAR).
>
>
>
> There is some more unpleasantness... If we can't find a way to refer to
> certain directories in their current locations but instead are forced to
> put them in a jar file, we are going to lose some convenient change and
> retry stuff we can do now, mainly with the scripts on the classpath (all
> files in each component/script directory, mostly simple-method XML files).
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev