Marina,
Sorry for the delay (just came back from a busy trip). I'll try to take
a look at it today.
Cheers,
Reza
On 6/24/2011 6:05 PM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1513/3721 - Release Date: 06/23/11
>
>