Sigh. I still feel like we are stuck. I'm hearing that we can either have developers use EJB (lite or full Java EE) or they have to go find a framework to have transactional beans. Maybe in the future this will be in Java EE, but today we have to go about it our own way. And the divergence is what bothers me.<br>
<br>If I had to sell this thing to an audience today, I would basically lobby hard for the use of an EJB w/ EJB lite because the alternative sounds too proprietary for me.<br><br>-Dan<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Reza Rahman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:reza_rahman@lycos.com">reza_rahman@lycos.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Dan,<br>
<br>
I think the idea of using EJB "aspects" outside the component model is<br>
something Java EE will accommodate soon anyway. The solution for now<br>
should probably be implementing embeddable containers that way right<br>
now. In our case, we still use @TransactionAttribute, but maybe you guys<br>
could use @Transactional or something similar...<br>
<div class="im"><br>
Cheers,<br>
Reza<br>
<br>
<br>
Dan Allen wrote:<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">> Yep, the spec states:<br>
><br>
> 'In a Java EE implementation, a Managed Bean may use any of the<br>
> resource injection functionality laid out in Chapter 5 of the Java EE<br>
> Platform specification, “Resources, Naming and Injection“.'<br>
><br>
> Hmm, but the trouble is, where does that leave Tomcat and Jetty? And<br>
> if the resource like the persistence context or UT is to be injected,<br>
> who is doing the injecting? Of course, if EJB lite were present, it<br>
> could handle it.<br>
><br>
> So basically, what I'm getting at is that perhaps CDI can provide this<br>
> transaction and persistence support (maybe even the resource<br>
> injection) when the Java EE environment is not present (meaning EJB<br>
> lite is also absent).<br>
><br>
> Of course, we can prototype this as a portable extension today. I'm<br>
> certainly not opposed to that. But I would hope if we did, the long<br>
> term goal would be to somehow provide this in Java EE lite.<br>
><br>
> I understand this argument is circular, because eventually you arrive<br>
> back at the question "why not just make them use Java EE?" The idea is<br>
> to attract developers to Java EE by giving them one more stepping stone.<br>
><br>
> -Dan<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Dan Allen<br>
> Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action<br>
> Registered Linux User #231597<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://mojavelinux.com" target="_blank">http://mojavelinux.com</a><br>
> <a href="http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction" target="_blank">http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction</a><br>
> <a href="http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen</a><br>
<br>
</div></div><div><div></div><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
weld-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:weld-dev@lists.jboss.org">weld-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev</a></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Dan Allen<br>Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action<br>
Registered Linux User #231597<br><br><a href="http://mojavelinux.com">http://mojavelinux.com</a><br><a href="http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction">http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction</a><br><a href="http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen">http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen</a><br>