Marina,
as long as there are two choices of which one is mandatory, rewording is ok for me. I was just giving a hint that there are other occurrences of "may be defined" where no one of the given choices is mandatory.
Examples for the latter case:
4.9.3: "The PostConstruct, PreDestroy, PrePassivate, and PostActivate lifecycle callback
interceptor methods may be defined for session beans."
7.3: "Interceptor methods may be defined for business methods of sessions beans and for the message listener
methods of message-driven beans."
Maybe this seems natural to you and it was more a hint to myself as I'm not a native speaker...
Regards
Stefan!
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Marina Vatkina [mailto:marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. August 2011 03:38
An: marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com
Cc: jsr345-experts_at_ejb-spec.java.net
Betreff: [jsr345-experts] Re: Question about (EJB_SPEC-20) Application Exceptions as part of a throws clause
Looks like some hidden characters from my working doc cause mail truncation :(.
What I was asking about - do you think all of them should be reworded?
If not, I'd rather not make it inconsistent...
thanks,
-marina
Marina Vatkina wrote:
> Stefan,
>
> Here is another (similar) case of a "may be defined":
>
> "Lifecycle callback interceptor methods may be defined directly on the
> bean class or on a separate interceptor class ..."