Do others agree on the 1st part - to make "optional" features that were
marked "proposed optional" in EJB 3.1?
Let's discuss the 2nd part separately as I do see forum questions all
the time on looking up EJBs with CORBA properties in the InitialContext.
thanks,
-marina
Pete Muir wrote:
> Agreed here as well :-)
>
> On 30 Jun 2011, at 15:48, Reza Rahman wrote:
>
>
>> I agree.
>>
>> On 6/30/2011 5:36 AM, Stefan Heldt wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, hopefully java.net is up now.
>>>
>>> And of course: I would vote for a) and marking all other EJB 2.1 things as proposed OPTIONAL in 3.2.
>>>
>>> Stefan!
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: Marina Vatkina [mailto:marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com]
>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. Juni 2011 23:42
>>> An: Stefan Heldt
>>> Betreff: Re: AW: [jsr345-experts] Re: Working draft documents are available for review
>>>
>>> Hi Stefan,
>>>
>>> As proposed optional :).
>>>
>>> You might need to resend your reply, if it is not delivered to the aliases when java.net is back up.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> -marina
>>>
>>> Stefan Heldt wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would vote for a) and marking all other EJB 2.1 things as proposed final in 3.2.
>>>>
>>>> Stefan!
>>>>
>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>> Von: Marina Vatkina [mailto:marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com]
>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011 02:34
>>>> An: jsr345-experts_at_ejb-spec.java.net
>>>> Betreff: [jsr345-experts] Re: Working draft documents are available
>>>> for review
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> -----
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 10.0.1388 / Virus Database: 1516/3734 - Release Date: 06/29/11
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>