Support JMS mappings -------------------- Key: CDI-106 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-106 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Feature Request Reporter: Pete Muir Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-106?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Mark Struberg commented on CDI-106: ----------------------------------- There are already lots of EE specific things in the spec. But the entry section lists a possibility to run in a stripped down form if running on SE: "An application that takes advantage of these services may be designed to execute in either th Java EE environment or the Java SE environment. If the application uses Java EE services such as transaction management and persistence in the Java SE environment, the services are usually restricted to, at most, the subset defined for embedded usage by the EJB specification." The spec says that the container must know how to handle those EE resources/functionality. But the spec also allows to implement it via a lightweight modular plugin system (OWB is designed that way) where not all the functionality is always present in every deployment. > Support JMS mappings > -------------------- > > Key: CDI-106 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-106 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Feature Request > Reporter: Pete Muir > Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed) > > -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-106?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Mark Struberg commented on CDI-106: ----------------------------------- Yea, I know what you mean and we already discussed this in the past. Basically it's a matter of taste. Gavins argument was that a certified CDI container (all TCK passes) needs to support the whole EE range. But every implementation is also free to define a stripped down variant on it's own - which is then _not_ spec compliant. We could of course try to define a minimum feature set of functionality for running in a SE environment. But then politics kick in! JSR-299 was originally EXPLICITLY defines as for Java ENTERPRISE! And extending this to SE was kind of a blasphemy already. For example: check the history of the CDI spec name Just trust me, you don't like to know all the gory details ... ;) > Support JMS mappings > -------------------- > > Key: CDI-106 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-106 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Feature Request > Reporter: Pete Muir > Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed) > > -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev

Support JMS mappings -------------------- Key: CDI-106 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-106 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Feature Request Components: Java EE integration Reporter: Pete Muir Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed)

Support JMS mappings -------------------- Key: CDI-106 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-106 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Tracker Components: Java EE integration Reporter: Pete Muir Assignee: John Ament Fix For: 1.1 (Proposed)