Pete Muir wrote:
I fought quite extensively over this and I'm not really prepared
spend (waste) any more time on it.
TBH, I'm not even sure that anyone from EJB3/AS/MC actually gets what
this feature actually is and why it is important *. The main discussion
the EJB3/AS/MC guys wanted to have seemed to be over who was to "blame"
for Seam apps not running on AS5, a discussion which I have absolutely
no interest in pursuing *.
I think we get the feature and know why we all want it. I keep running
into similar issues myself
But currently we're at a stalemate here and I'm out of moves.
In fact, this whole discussion (and other similar ones) left me
sour in the mouth. The general impression I got was that Seam as a
vehicle for pushing EJB3 wasn't interesting for the EJB3 guys, from
which I formed the conclusion that we would probably be better off
concentrating on the Seam JavaBean component model.
And so, if anyone else wants to pick up the AS5 integration work/liaison
from me, please do!
* There are a couple of exceptions to this of course
On 29 Mar 2008, at 14:25, Gavin King wrote:
> Agreed, we definitely can't say that Seam supports JBoss5 until this
> feature is back in.
You got my vote.
> One of the critical selling features of Seam is that no XML is
> required to declare a component.
> Anyway, this feature will be in the next rev of EJB.
Either you mean JavaEE or I missed something. I don't see it in the
latest EJB3.1 draft, maybe it should be raised?
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Dan Allen
>>> From an interop perspective this feature is a good seperator with
>>> other containers, especially for beginers.
>>> Not worrying about populating web.XML makes learning and getting
>>> started easier.
>>> My $0.02
>> I'm a little late to the game with this response, but I want to point
>> out that a number of Seam/JBoss developers cited this feature while
>> bragging about why JBoss AS is better than alternative application
>> servers. By taking the feature away, it results mouths stuffed with
>> feet. Besides, "configuration by exception" is the very saving grace
>> of the platform and this is a prime candidate for such a pattern.
>> My dime. Sent from a computer I don't own.
> Gavin King