I was told that CTS tests cover <data-source> in all containers.
-marina
Reza Rahman wrote:
> 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 the outdated stuff removed.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
>>
>>
>