I'm curious to everybody's vision on exception handling in this light.
I like the strict format of EJB exception handling, but this does expose
EJBException and friends to the client.
Carlo
On 06/18/2011 02:27 AM, Reza Rahman wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I guess this is a question more for Marina and/or Pete as well as for
> all of us collectively to ponder (and maybe the Java EE EG). As I
> mentioned in my introductory email, there are a number of EJB-ish
> features that I personally believe is a better fit for the CDI 1.1
> and/or JMS 2 specifications. Here is a partial list of such features:
>
> * Introducing the @TransactionScoped and @ThreadScoped CDI scopes
> geared towards using back-end resources in a thread-safe manner in
> plain managed beans.
> * Introducing the @PoolScoped CDI scope as a way of providing the
> equivalent of stateless session beans in plain managed beans.
> Alternatively or in addition to, a @MaxActive annotation could be
> introduced.
> * Re-factoring Message Driven Beans to enable message receivers in
> plain managed beans via CDI observers.
> * Standardizing some common JMS activation properties as direct
> message listener attributes.
>
> Now, a lot of this hinges on successfully decoupling EJB transactions
> from the component model. If we are reasonably confident that this
> will happen and agree that these features really belong outside the
> EJB specification, I'd like to bring them up ASAP in the CDI 1.1
> and/or JMS 2 EGs. I thought it's only fair to check here first before
> I went down that path too far...
>
> What do we think?
>
> Cheers,
> Reza