Marina, do we need to call them optional, or can we call them "pruned" like in Java EE?
On 28 Jun 2011, at 01:33, Marina Vatkina wrote:
> Stefan Heldt wrote:
>> +1 for the applause :-)
>>
>
> thanks :)
>> +1 for moving all EJB 2.1 stuff into the optional part. There are surely many pros and cons for this, but is it really good to have parts of 2.1 mandatory and others optional?
>
> We have 2 choices:
>
> a) make optional in this release features that were defined as proposed optional in 3.1;
> b) make them optional in the next release (or later) when we have more features that reach this option.
>
> What would be your preference?
>
>> With JAX-RPC we already have the beginning of a "dumping ground", but imho that's the nature of a document called "Optional Features"
>>
>
> JAX-RPC was proposed optional together with BMP/CMP. So they are in the same boat.
>
>> Regarding the transaction attributes for asynchronous calls (8.3.7 core ), I'd like to see only REQUIRED and NOT_SUPPORTED as for MDBs. REQUIRED and REQUIRES_NEW have the same effect anyway, so it's only confusing to allow for both. I know that this is in contradiction to Adam's proposal in EJB_SPEC-6 :-) and I'm happy to discuss it. The same should apply to timeout callback methods.
>>
>
> It might be simpler (though you can argue between REQUIRED and REQUIRES_NEW which would add to the confusion) , but for backward compatibility rules, it can be impossible to change.
>> And finally two minor editorial comments for the core document:
>> page 23, chapter 1.5: "two documents" are followed by three bullet points and two of them are explained. Should be like 1.2 of the optional document
>> page 62, chapter 4.1: JPA isn't part of this spec anymore
>>
>
> Thanks! I'll fix the typos.
>
> Best,
> -marina
>> Regards
>> Stefan!
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Carlo de Wolf [mailto:cdewolf_at_redhat.com] Gesendet: Montag, 27. Juni 2011 10:33
>> An: marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com
>> Cc: jsr345-experts_at_ejb-spec.java.net
>> Betreff: [jsr345-experts] Re: Working draft documents are available for review
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>