Marina,
I don't think it is needed. Makes things seem more restrictive than they
need to be...
Cheers,
Reza
On 7/6/2011 8:10 PM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
> Should we add a word of caution for the lifecycle callback methods to
> be exposed as business methods?
>
> thanks,
> -marina
>
> Carlo de Wolf wrote:
>> (page 86)
>>
>> Yes. The lifecycle annotation is only an indicator which method must
>> be called by the container at the appropriate event. The method can
>> equally be called via a view.
>>
>> Carlo
>>
>> On 07/06/2011 01:02 AM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
>>> Dear Experts,
>>>
>>> Before we go any further on the discussions of the spec
>>> improvements, we need to close on several issues with the current
>>> version:
>>>
>>> 1. Vote on the optionality of the Entity Beans and JAX-RPC based Web
>>> Service Endpoints (and the split of the spec into 2 parts, but the
>>> split is the secondary issue). I have only 3 votes (positive) so far.
>>>
>>> 2. Close on the items marked by Linda as XXX in the drafts.
>>>
>>> 3. Define *deterministic* rules in the EJB spec about EJB Lite vs.
>>> EJB Full list of features in regards to the EJB support in a Web
>>> Profile container. In addition to be very flexible (contrary to the
>>> regular Java EE approach, and the expectations of the EJB TCK), the
>>> current wording in the spec does not make it clear a) what is
>>> expected and what is not in the Web Profile, and b) if we keep it
>>> flexible, how a user (at deployment and/or runtime) can determine if
>>> a specific feature outside EJB Lite is available/supported.
>>>
>>> The same applies to the Embeddable EJB Container.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> -marina
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1388 / Virus Database: 1516/3748 - Release Date: 07/06/11
>
>