Thanks! I think it's clear enough without the diagrams (if anybody
disagrees, please provide your version).
Best,
-marina
Reza Rahman wrote:
> Marina,
>
> Sorry for the delay. There were a few other things on my end that
> could not wait. Here is the modified text:
>
> ============================================================================================================================================================
>
> The Application Assembler assembles enterprise beans into deployment
> units. The Application Assembler’s input is one or more enterprise
> beans contained in one or more ejb-jar and/or .war files provided by
> one or more Bean Providers. The Bean Provider's output may also simply
> be un-assembled enterprise beans that must be packaged in an ejb-jar
> or .war file. The Application Assembler will create one or more
> ejb-jar and/or .war files from the input artifacts as needed. All of
> the input could be combined into a single output ejb-jar or .war file.
> Similarly, the input could also be split into multiple output ejb-jar
> and/or .war files. For example, the Application Assembler could
> combine ejb1.jar and ejb2.jar into ejb3.jar, combine ejb1.jar and
> web1.war into web2.war, split ejb1.jar into ejb2.jar and ejb3.jar,
> split web1.war into ejb1.jar and web2.jar, and so forth. Each output
> ejb-jar or .war file is either a deployment unit intended for the
> Deployer or a partially assembled application that is intended for
> another Application Assembler.
> ============================================================================================================================================================
>
>
> I tried not to go too overboard and keep things consistent with the
> rest of the spec sections that are similar.
>
> Hope it helps. Feel free to use it in whatever way makes the best
> sense. If the text still feels too dense, I would split the sentences
> further and add more examples/diagrams.
>
> Cheers,
> Reza
>
>
> On 8/2/2011 9:34 PM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
>> Reza,
>>
>> Reza Rahman wrote:
>>> Marina,
>>>
>>> Responses below:
>>>
>>> * Yes :-(. Any suggestions?
>>> - The basic problem is that the text is too dense. I would add some
>>> specific examples and perhaps diagrams.
>>
>> Do you mind writing something up?
>>
>> thanks,
>> -marina
>>> * I agree. Should I just remove both XXX comments?
>>> - I think so.
>>> * A Java SE client won't find classes if they are part of a .war
>>> file...
>>> - I see...
>>> * The problem is with the rules about the should/must/are/etc. words
>>> in the spec. Only "must" is a requirement. If this bootstrapping
>>> process is not a must, what will be a portable way to do so?
>>> - OK - in that case we could add "must" to the text there.
>>> * Let's start a separate discussion on that.
>>> - OK
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Reza
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/1/2011 8:53 PM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
>>>> Sending my replies as an attachment in the hope to bypass my mail
>>>> client weird truncations... If this doesn't work, will send them
>>>> one-by-one...
>>>>
>>>> -marina
>>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3806 - Release Date: 08/02/11
>>
>>
>