12:58 a.m.
I'm getting a bunch of feedback to the effect that the Web Beans spec
should drop the notion of a pluggable Web Bean manager.
I'm prepared to go down this path on the condition that we reach
agreement with the EE group that Web Beans will be a required part of
the Java EE 6 web profile, which is something that has not yet been
agreed (however, I believe that agreement will eventually be
achieved).
This would be a major simplifying change to the spec:
* it would immediately close off most of the open issues mentioned in
the Public Draft
* we could stop talking about a "Web Bean manager", and simply talk
about the "container", where "container" would be defined to refer to
either the Java EE container, or the embedded EJB Lite container in
the SE case
* we could remove several special cases where functionality "is not
required when a plugin Web Bean manager runs in a Java EE 5
environment"
* it would help avoid giving the impression that web beans is a
separate component model with a separate container
Of course, the downside of this change is that implementations of 299
would no longer be pluggable in different EE environments. This simply
doesn't seem like much of a big deal to me - at least not unless Web
Beans is an optional feature of EE6, in which case the pluggability
contracts are required for people to even be able to use Web Beans in
EE when their vendor does not support the optional feature.
I would like to know if anyone here is especially attached to
pluggability and would be upset by the removal of this feature. I
would especially like to know if this would affect anyone's plans to
*implement* 299.
--
Gavin King
gavin.king(a)gmail.com
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
http://hibernate.org
http://seamframework.org
8:48 p.m.
There's always the possibility of exploring pluggability after Java EE
6 is out. It does seem to be a heck of a lot simpler for right now,
both from the implementation and the conceptual level.
Too bad we didn't get more responses on this list. It does seem to be
an issue which a lot of people have a vested interest in (especially
if it affects adoption).
-Dan
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:50 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 24 Nov 2008, at 08:58, Gavin King wrote:
> I'm getting a bunch of feedback to the effect that the Web Beans spec
> should drop the notion of a pluggable Web Bean manager.
Works for me.
_______________________________________________
webbeans-dev mailing list
webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
--
Dan Allen
Software consultant | Author of Seam in Action
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
NOTE: While I make a strong effort to keep up with my email on a daily
basis, personal or other work matters can sometimes keep me away
from my email. If you contact me, but don't hear back for more than a week,
it is very likely that I am excessively backlogged or the message was
caught in the spam filters. Please don't hesitate to resend a message if
you feel that it did not reach my attention.
9:35 p.m.
Hi
+1
I think it is good idea to have two different approaches for integrating WebBeans
functionality. Moreover, supporting for the pluggable integration with Java EE 5.0
standart API is even more important for the time being than Java EE 6.0 standart server
internal integration.
Gurkan Erdogdu
________________________________
From: Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com>
To: Gavin King <gavin(a)hibernate.org>
Cc: "webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org" <webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>; Java
Community Process JSR #299 Expert List <JSR-299-EG(a)jcp.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2008 11:48:31 AM
Subject: Re: [webbeans-dev] Drop pluggability
There's always the possibility of exploring pluggability after Java EE
6 is out. It does seem to be a heck of a lot simpler for right now,
both from the implementation and the conceptual level.
Too bad we didn't get more responses on this list. It does seem to be
an issue which a lot of people have a vested interest in (especially
if it affects adoption).
-Dan
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:50 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 24 Nov 2008, at 08:58, Gavin King wrote:
> I'm getting a bunch of feedback to the effect that the Web Beans spec
> should drop the notion of a pluggable Web Bean manager.
Works for me.
_______________________________________________
webbeans-dev mailing list
webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
--
Dan Allen
Software consultant | Author of Seam in Action
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
NOTE: While I make a strong effort to keep up with my email on a daily
basis, personal or other work matters can sometimes keep me away
from my email. If you contact me, but don't hear back for more than a week,
it is very likely that I am excessively backlogged or the message was
caught in the spam filters. Please don't hesitate to resend a message if
you feel that it did not reach my attention.
_______________________________________________
webbeans-dev mailing list
webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
10:30 p.m.
To provide EE 5 support does *not* require that the pluggability
contracts be defined in the web beans spec. In fact, it's totally
useless, since Java EE 5 is what it is. We can't add new requirements
on EE5 implementations now.
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi
+1
I think it is good idea to have two different approaches for integrating
WebBeans functionality. Moreover, supporting for the pluggable integration
with Java EE 5.0 standart API is even more important for the time being than
Java EE 6.0 standart server internal integration.
Gurkan Erdogdu
________________________________
From: Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com>
To: Gavin King <gavin(a)hibernate.org>
Cc: "webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org" <webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>; Java
Community Process JSR #299 Expert List <JSR-299-EG(a)jcp.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2008 11:48:31 AM
Subject: Re: [webbeans-dev] Drop pluggability
There's always the possibility of exploring pluggability after Java EE
6 is out. It does seem to be a heck of a lot simpler for right now,
both from the implementation and the conceptual level.
Too bad we didn't get more responses on this list. It does seem to be
an issue which a lot of people have a vested interest in (especially
if it affects adoption).
-Dan
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:50 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 24 Nov 2008, at 08:58, Gavin King wrote:
>
>> I'm getting a bunch of feedback to the effect that the Web Beans spec
>> should drop the notion of a pluggable Web Bean manager.
>
> Works for me.
> _______________________________________________
> webbeans-dev mailing list
> webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
>
--
Dan Allen
Software consultant | Author of Seam in Action
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
NOTE: While I make a strong effort to keep up with my email on a daily
basis, personal or other work matters can sometimes keep me away
from my email. If you contact me, but don't hear back for more than a week,
it is very likely that I am excessively backlogged or the message was
caught in the spam filters. Please don't hesitate to resend a message if
you feel that it did not reach my attention.
_______________________________________________
webbeans-dev mailing list
webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
_______________________________________________
webbeans-dev mailing list
webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
--
Gavin King
gavin.king(a)gmail.com
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
http://hibernate.org
http://seamframework.org
5613
days inactive
5626
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Dan Allen -
Gavin King -
Gurkan Erdogdu -
Pete Muir