You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net> on 2007/12/06 11:20:43 UTC
rmi jar renamed
<jar jarfile="${build.dir}/lib/${name}-rmi.raj">
is this by design?
Re: rmi jar renamed
Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
thanks scott will read more.
:)
Scott Gray sent the following on 12/6/2007 9:20 PM:
> You've missed something. ofbiz-service-rmi.raj is a client library not
> intended to be run on the server, hence the raj instead of jar.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 07/12/2007, BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net> wrote:
>> So should the RMI in the ofbiz-containers.xml be commented out, as well,
>> or have I missed something?
>>
>> David E Jones sent the following on 12/6/2007 2:26 AM:
>>> Yes
>>>
>>> On Dec 6, 2007, at 3:20 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>>> <jar jarfile="${build.dir}/lib/${name}-rmi.raj">
>>>> is this by design?
>
Re: rmi jar renamed
Posted by Scott Gray <le...@gmail.com>.
You've missed something. ofbiz-service-rmi.raj is a client library not
intended to be run on the server, hence the raj instead of jar.
Regards
Scott
On 07/12/2007, BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net> wrote:
>
> So should the RMI in the ofbiz-containers.xml be commented out, as well,
> or have I missed something?
>
> David E Jones sent the following on 12/6/2007 2:26 AM:
> >
> > Yes
> >
> > On Dec 6, 2007, at 3:20 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
> >
> >> <jar jarfile="${build.dir}/lib/${name}-rmi.raj">
> >> is this by design?
> >
>
Re: rmi jar renamed
Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
So should the RMI in the ofbiz-containers.xml be commented out, as well,
or have I missed something?
David E Jones sent the following on 12/6/2007 2:26 AM:
>
> Yes
>
> On Dec 6, 2007, at 3:20 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>
>> <jar jarfile="${build.dir}/lib/${name}-rmi.raj">
>> is this by design?
>
Re: rmi jar renamed
Posted by David E Jones <jo...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Yes
On Dec 6, 2007, at 3:20 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
> <jar jarfile="${build.dir}/lib/${name}-rmi.raj">
> is this by design?