Hi Antonio,
On 3/4/13 10:55 PM, Antonio Goncalves wrote:
> Hi Marina,
>
> There is nothing about JAX-RS endpoints in table 19.
So far JAX-RS support was not a responsibility of the EJB Container, so
I feel that adding it to the table will add it as a requirement. But if
others think its useful, I can add JAX-RS under the EJB Lite services.
> I know it's not the appropriate chapter of the spec but shouldn't
> packaging be mentioned ?
The packaging requirements should be described in the platform documents
- are they not?
> At least point to a different paragraph. Packaging an EJB Lite (war)
> or Full (jar/ear) is a bit confusing at the moment (e.g. you can
> package MDBs in a war file under JBoss, couldn't make it work on
> GlassFish 3 at the time).
You should be able to package an MDB into a war file. If GF doesn't
support it, it's a bug.
thanks,
-marina
>
> Antonio
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:46 AM, Marina Vatkina
> <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com <mailto:marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>> wrote:
>
> Experts,
>
> I've written the rules for adding support for EJB features in
> addition to the EJB Lite, i.e. to allow EJB containers some
> flexibility in-between EJB Lite and EJB Full requirements. Those
> of you who were asking for it, please do your part and review it asap.
>
> The proposed changes are in the section 16.1 "EJB Lite" and the
> corresponding part of the spec is available in the project
> download area under the title " EJB API Groups Definitions and
> Rules
> <http://java.net/projects/ejb-spec/downloads/download/p416-418.pdf>".
>
> The changes span only 3 pages, with the changes on the 1st page
> are to remove "3.2" version from the text. I.e. it shouldn't take
> long to review them ;)
>
> The major changes are on the pages 2 and 3 (417 and 418). They
> include replacing the table 19 “Required contents of EJB Lite and
> Full EJB API” with a new table (also #19) called “EJB API Groups”.
> These are the groups of features that can be supported only as a
> whole group, and EJB Lite being just one of them. The section
> 16.1.1, “Support for Other EJB API Groups in an EJB Lite
> Container” defines additional rules.
>
> One side effect of this change is to remove fine-grained options
> for the BMP/CMP support defined in Chapter 2 of the optional
> document (i.e. BMP/CMP should be supported all or none).
>
> Unless I hear otherwise in the next day or so (the PFD submission
> date is this week), I'll include the proposed changes into the
> spec and adjust the optional doc accordingly.
>
> Best,
> -marina
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Antonio Goncalves
> Software architect and Java Champion
>
> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> | Twitter
> <http://twitter.com/agoncal> | LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris JUG
> <http://www.parisjug.org> | Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr>