Marina,
Ahh - that makes sense now. Also, looking at the Java EE 6 spec, it
looks like it is pretty clear that @DataSourceDefinition works on all
"container managed objects including Servlets and EJBs", so maybe that's
enough. I'm not sure if the TCK had tests for <data-source> in
ejb-jar.xml. I don't recall it, which is why I was wondering.
Thanks for looking into it though.
Cheers,
Reza
On 6/30/2011 5:35 PM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
> We all got confused...
>
> The <data-source> is defined in the platform spec and schema, and
> ejb-jar_3_1.xsd (and all others) include all of it:
>
> <xsd:include schemaLocation="javaee_6.xsd"/>
>
> If we want to mention @DataSourceDefinition annotation, please suggest
> the location.
>
> thanks,
> -marina
>
> Marina Vatkina wrote:
>> Thank you Reza.
>>
>> Yes, please file the issues, so that we have a common list of items
>> to look at. The actual issues with the spec (as in the data-source
>> you mention as compared to the wish list as the interop) should be
>> marked as a bug or a task depending on the context.
>>
>> thanks,
>> -marina
>>
>> Reza Rahman wrote:
>>> Marina,
>>>
>>> Good work (I am sure it was not particularly easy). I didn't read
>>> everything word-for-word, but it looks OK. If I see anything at a
>>> later point in time, I will let you know.
>>>
>>> Generally, it obviously makes things a lot less cluttered with all
>>> the outdated stuff removed. I only regret that I did not push harder
>>> to make all the EJB 2.x stuff pruned in EJB 3.1. Maybe we can fix
>>> that this time. I don't know how others feel, but I would also like
>>> to prune the CORBA interoperability. All this stuff was fine in the
>>> late 90s/early 2000s. It's just an eyesore in 2011/2012 and a
>>> reminder of why so many people still dread EJB despite all of our
>>> efforts to make it a truly lightweight technology.
>>>
>>> A couple of other things that caught my eye while reading this:
>>> * Anyone remember why just session beans and not message driven
>>> beans also are not defined to be managed beans? Should that be fixed?
>>> * I think the schema is missing the <data-source> element
>>> (corresponding to the @DataSourceDefinition annotation). I believe
>>> application.xml, ejb-jar.xml and web.xml were all supposed to
>>> support that. In fact, should we make some mention of the
>>> @DataSourceDefinition annotation?
>>>
>>> If you need me to enter JIRAs for these, let me know.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Reza
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/17/2011 7:35 PM, 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: 1513/3710 - Release Date:
>>>> 06/17/11
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1388 / Virus Database: 1516/3735 - Release Date: 06/30/11
>
>