Re: [webbeans-dev] Spec Conflicts Between JSR-299, JSR-318

Gavin King wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Andrew Lee Rubinger > <alr(a)jboss.org&gt; wrote: > > >> * JSR-299 implementations are treated the same as any client of EJB; >> they use/consume EJB as one of the target component models. >> > > That is no longer true, since the pluggability contracts have been > removed. > > EJB and 299 are just aspects of the EE container. > There is no definition of the EE container yet. There is an EJB (JSR 318) container on top of which we want WB. In a perfect world we would have a definition of the EE container and how we can plug EJB and WB into it. So in effect WB needs a pluggability contract on EJB, whether it's spec defined or vendor specific. > >> * A mechanism EJB makes available to JSR-299 should be available to >> everyone. >> > > I don't see why this should necessarily by the case. 299 is a piece > of > the container. > The question becomes who's going to build *the* container. I think we should build it by composition on top of the EJB container which brings you back into the extension hooks you would need. > > >> 1) EJB does not define an endpoint for SFSB removal outside >> business/component method @Remove/remove() and timeout >> > > But 299 does. What's the problem? > Herein lies no real problem. Personally I find it a bummer that from a POJO perspective I see another destroy transition outside the bean definition. Anyway it just means we just need to go back to some EJB 2 constructs like EJBHome & EJBObject to make it happen. So you get SessionObjectHome and SessionObjectReference. Which gives me an itch. > > >> 2) JSR-299 defines activity in the middle of EJB Lifecycle >> >> JSR-299 PR2 6.11 - "When the EJB container creates a new instance >> of an EJB, >> the container must perform the following steps after Java EE >> injection has >> been performed and before the @PostConstruct callback occurs..." >> >> EJB defines no callback mechanism for a hypothetical >> @PostInstanciated >> before @PostConstruct. Thus there's no hook defined for WB to do >> its magic. >> > > 299 is now part of the container. It doesn't need a hook. > This is exactly the wrong way around and leads into the spec conflict. Basically once I'm JSR 318 compliant I'm done and you're stuck. We should need a change request on JSR-318 and possibly define a minimal EE container. To make sure we can move forward let's not yet go to JSR-318 yet and just continue our own internal change request. Still I think JSR-318 could benefit highly from this. Carlo _______________________________________________ webbeans-dev mailing list webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev