Thanks Fred. That make it much more clear.
Much appreciated the help from this expert group.
thanks,
Binod.
On 3/8/2013 5:38 PM, frowe_at_us.ibm.com wrote:
> Binod,
>
> You asked:
>
>>> Even 236 doesn't necessarily need to define these interfaces
> separately, right?
>>> Given JSR 236 do have these interfaces defined separately, I thought
> it should be
>>> the decision of SIP Servlet EG to decide whether they should define
> one
>>> or more JNDI names. What I don't understand is how does it break, JSR
> 236.
>
> No, JSR236 didn't have to separate those APIs but then again, neither
> did JSE have to separate the ExecutorService and
> ScheduledExecutorService. But it did and thus it was a natural
> extension for us to do so also. Nathan's comment simply pointed out
> that depending on the needs of SIP and the inheritance of those
> interfaces, one "could" (vs "should") choose to register a single
> interface in JNDI. In the end, it is the decision of the SIP EG to
> make that decision.
>
>
>>> I did understand the point you are making. Again, I thought, this
> should be left
>>> to the decision of SIP Servlet EG, unless it breaks 236 in some way.
> One of the goals of JSR236 is to:
> Allow application component providers to easily add concurrency to
> existing Java EE applications.
> Our point was that SIP could help meet that goal with the definition of
> a default instance. It doesn't break JSR236 to not do so, and again it
> is the decision of the SIP EG.
>
> Regards,
> Fred