[cdi-dev] More about SE/EE splitting

[arjan tijms]

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Antonio Goncalves
<antonio.goncalves at gmail.com> wrote:
> Managed Beans are already confusing.... turning it to "bean" can be even
> more confusing.

And what about the confusion that a "factory" for a type is also
called Bean? (Bean<T>)

Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms


>
> Antonio
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> >
>> > In the EE part, I added changed all "session bean" occurrences by "EJB
>> > session bean”.
>>
>> Ok, I don’t think this is a problem.
>>
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Antonio Goncalves
> Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
>
> Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.