Carlo,
We can only make optional in this release features that were "proposed
optional" in the earlier version of the spec.
thanks,
-marina
Carlo de Wolf wrote:
> I'm hinged on two thoughts, but first I applaud the split.
>
> 1. It doesn't go far enough. It would be good to see all vestiges of
> EJB 2.1 be split off. So EJBHome / EJBLocalHome and SessionBean (and
> friends) interfaces.
> 2. On the other hand it's good to see a document that details CMP/BMP.
> We don't want to end up with a dumping ground.
>
> Carlo
>
> On 06/18/2011 01:35 AM, 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
>>
>