Thank you Pete.
Experts, do we have any comments (from anybody)? When should I expect to
have them?
Please also tell me (and the rest of the world) if you approve the split
and the decision to make those features optional, or do you see any
major issues.
Thank you,
-marina
Pete Muir wrote:
> Amazing job Marina :-)
>
> I will forward to people at Red Hat to get a full review.
>
> On 18 Jun 2011, at 00:35, Marina Vatkina wrote:
>
>
>> Yes, you now have 2 (you did ask for a split, didn't you? ;)) documents that constitute the EJB 3.2 draft.
>>
>> They are uploaded for the review at http://java.net/projects/ejb-spec/downloads, and called the Core Requirements, and the Optional Features. The latter includes all of the formerly proposed optional features (i.e. support for EJB 2.1 and earlier Entity Beans and JAX-RPC based Web Service Endpoints), and the former has the rest with just a handful of references to the latter.
>>
>> I did my best with the split. Some things were easy (CMP/BMP chapters), some were not. E.g., I left deployment descriptors schema in the Core doc as it wasn't clear how and if it is possible to split it, but the details that are specific to the optional features are described in the Optional doc. I changed some code examples that were referencing an Entity Bean to be using a second Session bean. You'll see more...
>>
>> I do need help modifying Ch8 Support for Transactions. I ran out of ideas of how to avoid referencing there the Entity Beans (see the "diamond" diagram and the corresponding text). May be if/when we refactor transaction support into a common Java EE document (the name TBD), it will be fixed there without mentioning the EJBs altogether.
>>
>> In addition to the actual split, the documents include questions for the reviewers marked with XXX - Linda did a careful pass through the text (before I split it) and reworded some of the statements where it was needed or would benefit from rewording. XXX markers are items that need further clarifications.
>>
>> Please carefully review both documents.
>>
>> Have a nice reading,
>> -marina
>>
>>
>
>