[cdi-dev] More about SE/EE splitting

[Antoine Sabot-Durand]

> Le 15 avr. 2015 à 17:08, Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> a écrit :
> 
> 
>> On 15 Apr 2015, at 13:31, Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine at sabot-durand.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Rethinking of this task and reading the feedback on this, I really think we should go step by step on this splitting.
>> 
>> What I have produced here is a full extraction of EJB in the spec to put it in EE part.
> 
> Yes, this is a great start.
> 
>> There are still Java EE references in core with EL, JSF, Servlet.
> 
> I’m least worried about EL, most about JSF and Serlet.

I’m not sure about JSF. Servlet is still here mainly because of contexts. As we'll probably change a few things in context (if we add context control for instance) perhaps and complete review of chapter 6 (scopes and context) will be necessary...

> 
>> 
>> The more problematic part is the Contexts chapter: hard to remove servlet ref without rewriting all...
>> 
>> And yes, I did some rewording that could be no very nice.
>> 
>> In some places I replaces "Managed Beans or Session Beans" by the generic term "bean”.
> 
> This is definitely not ok, as you expanded the scope of the sentence to include built-in beans, producer methods, producer fields, and custom beans. I would suggest providing list of these changes, so we can review each one.

Agree, on the paper that looks messy. I did it when I thought that the rules applied to all kind of beans, for others places I had to remove "session bean” mention (letting only managed bean) and recreate a similar section in EE part stating that rules in section foo of core was also valid for session beans.

I’ll create a list of these generic change since it’ll be easier to check if I didn’t made a mistake.


> 
>> Java EE component was replaced by component (yes, I'm not sure it is very meaningful)
> 
> I also think this is problematic. A Java EE component is a specific thing. I would suggest providing list of these changes, so we can review each one.


We have to find a new terminology. I’m a bit clueless her. Will list the places as well.

> 
>> 
>> In the EE part, I added changed all "session bean" occurrences by "EJB session bean”.
> 
> Ok, I don’t think this is a problem.


We have a ticket staying that we should clarify the term beans in the spec.

> 
>> 
>> The step I see are:
>> 
>> 0) Validate that we're all ok with the principle of splitting
>> 1) validate that all EJB references are removed from core
>> 2) Correct bad terminology that I introduced
>> 
>> And then we should continue the splitting by rewriting the contexts chapter and EL references in Core.
> 
> +1

I guess that everybody is ok with 0 by now. 1 is in process and shouldn’t be too hard, 2 is the trickiest one.

I’ll produce this list by the end of the week so we can discuss of each occurrences.

> 
>> 
>> Antoine
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdi-dev mailing list
>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>> 
>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Url : http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20150416/f7986306/attachment-0001.bin