Re: [webbeans-dev] Spec Conflicts Between JSR-299, JSR-318
On Mar 18, 2009, at 8:50 AM, pmuir(a)redhat.com wrote:
I spoke to andrew about this, and my understanding of his underlying
concern is around reciprocity - that the ejb spec should mention
that an impl should allow for jsr299 style injection at this post
instantiation point and also that the spec should say that and impl
may be expected to remove session objects for jsr299. An analagous
case is ejb etc injection into servlet - the servlet spec says it
should happen, but doesn't provide a spec'd callback for it.
And there is the question of plyggability (spec defined api for
these things, but that is out of scope for ee6 afaik).
Yes, if we do all this right we'll be ahead of the game in defining
real pluggability contracts for EE 7. For now, I don't see a need to
expose any additional EJB spec-level contracts for Web Beans.
Attempting that at this point wouldn't do much good given the larger
issue that the EJB spec itself has never attempted to define
pluggability. Even if we did, Web Beans integration would be the
least of the issues we'd need to address.
--ken
--
Pete Muir
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete
On 18 Mar 2009, at 05:19, Andrew Lee Rubinger <alr(a)jboss.org> wrote:
> Andrew Lee Rubinger wrote:
>> EJB defines no callback mechanism for a hypothetical
>> @PostInstanciated before @PostConstruct. Thus there's no hook
>> defined for WB to do its magic.
>
> I should note that the current WB impl gets around this by way of
> the SessionBeanInterceptor, which is a nice solution for JBoss -
> but I wonder what other vendors are going to be able to do.
>
> S,
> ALR
>
> --
> Andrew Lee Rubinger
> Sr. Software Engineer
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat, Inc.
> http://exitcondition.alrubinger.com
> _______________________________________________
> webbeans-dev mailing list
> webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev