[webbeans-dev] wb-ri-int deployers tests

[Pete Muir]

Yeah, I don't entirely get Ales' use case for this either ;-)

I can see it would make more sense with some of the Seam 3 modules  
where we aren't enforcing compatibility quite so much.

On 20 Jul 2009, at 19:06, Dan Allen wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 20 Jul 2009, at 09:24, Ales Justin wrote:
>
> >>> Since we add WB Bootstrap bean into top level deployment,
> >>> that top level needs to see wb-core.jar (which is what wasn't
> >>> happening with WBINT-16).
> >> NB we have https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/WBINT-17 which
> >> removes the need for adding the jar into the deployment (it can
> >> just be a library jar) which should mean that non-isolated CL will
> >> work (assuming we also do https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/WBINT-18)
> >> .
> >
> > The original idea was to add this dynamically depending on the
> > version of WB.
>
> I don't think this is useful as WB is a core part of EE6, so we will
> always have only one "supported" [1] version of WB.
>
> [1] which we run the TCK against etc.
>
> I'm not convinced that encouraging people to use X versions of WB in
> AS is a good idea really ;-) People should be coding against a 299
> version, which remains stable. Only case is if we have people relying
> on buggy behaviour....
>
> Even then you would likely replace the official version with an  
> older version, as opposed to running two at the same time.
>
> Btw, if you were to allow for multiple versions of WB, then you  
> would also open the door to multiple versions of EJB. As Pete said,  
> part of the value proposition of the AS is to have a single,  
> sanctioned versions of these APIs and implementations present.
>
> -Dan
>
> -- 
> Dan Allen
> Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
> Registered Linux User #231597
>
> http://mojavelinux.com
> http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Dan