On 21 Apr 2009, at 17:16, Clint Popetz wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Dan Allen
> Discussing modules, we definitely need a few more than are
> currently listed.
> Here are several I think we need:
> faces (which would have page actions, faces messages, and perhaps
> engulf the
> current ui too)
> pageflow (I think this should not be considered an extension of bpm
> since it is really standalone)
Here's a question...where does the line get drawn between Seam and
WebBeans in terms of extensions? For example, I've been talking to
Pete about implementing @Transactional and the SMPC with WebBeans.
Should that go in Seam 3 instead, since those were both Seam features
previously? I think the answer is "no" because those features make
WebBeans more usable for POJOs.
To be honest, I don't understand why both products need to exist. If
WebBeans had nothing but what was defined in JSR-299 I would
understand. But because WebBeans will be JSR-299 + cool stuff, what
cool stuff _doesn't_ go there? Is Seam3 just webbeans +
webbeans-extenions + seam2-compatibility layer?
This hasn't been finally decided yet - we need to have a brainstorming
My basic idea is to put into Web Beans only stuff that depends on the
core (so the core, servlet support, java se support) and integrations
(like wicket, seam, spring) and then add on modules in Seam (which
means logger is in the wrong place).
seam-dev mailing list