Drilling in to be as specific as possible. The activation config
property note is entirely in the EJB spec, so we're good in that
regard.
The one, nice-to-have, note for the Connector specification would be
an update to section 13.5:
"the endpoint instance supplied by the createEndPoint method call is
a proxy which implements the endpoint message listener type [and is
assignable to the bean class]"
In case there was a misunderstanding it was never proposed that said
proxy would not implement the message listener interface, simply that
in addition the proxy would be castable to the bean class similar to
@LocalBean. The term "no-interface-view" has been used to describe
this kind of proxy, which I think has lead to some confusion. I've
never liked the term "no-interface-view" even when we were using it in
EJB 3.1 and am actually the one who proposed @LocalBean. Reason being
is the bean may in fact have interfaces as is the case here and is
easily the case in EJB session beans. Having no interfaces is simply
one way to turn this on, the other is via annotation. Our plan is to
turn this on for MDBs as well.
-David
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM, David Blevins <david.blevins_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Timeline issues aside, what is the objection to EJB_SPEC-60?
>
> If it is a matter of how useful it is, the EJB EG is very on board and this is our third most popular issue of EJB 3.2.
>
> If it is a matter of size of change, no actual change to the JCA API need be changed. Two spec notes would be nice, but are not strictly required as they are actions taken by the EJB Container. These are:
>
> - A mention that the MDB Container will be offering the inbound connector a MessageEndpoint that is akin to a no-interface view.
> - A mention that the MDB Container will inject the bean class into the activation config, should the spec contain a 'beanClass' property.
>
>
> -David
>