Carlo,
Can you please elaborate?
thanks,
-marina
Carlo de Wolf wrote:
> 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
>