From: Marina Vatkina <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:18:30 -0800

Experts,

Am I making this change?

thanks,
-marina

Marina Vatkina wrote:
> Marina Vatkina wrote:
>> Thank you Jean-Louis.
>>
>> Jean-Louis MONTEIRO wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I mainly focused on changes (red change bars).
>>> 4.3.14 Transaction Context of Session Bean Methods
>>> --> the first sentence is very long and too difficult to understand.
>>> Is it possible to rephrase it or to split it?
>
> How about this:
>
> The following session bean's methods are invoked in the scope of a
> transaction determined by the transaction attribute specified in the
> bean’s metadata annotations or deployment descriptor:
> * an implementation of a method defined in a session bean’s
> business interface or component interface or no-interface view
> * a web service method
> * a timeout callback method
> * a singleton or a stateful session bean’s PostConstruct or
> PreDestroy lifecycle callback interceptor method
> * a stateful session bean’s PrePassivate and PostActivate lifecycle
> callback interceptor method
>
>
> thanks,
> -marina
>>>
>>> From 4.3.4, I can read life-cycle methods (PostConstruct for
>>> instance) of SLSB always execute in an unspecified transaction
>>> context. Only Singleton and Stateful support transaction attributes
>>> (8.6.5 Unspecified transaction is also mentioned for SLSB)
>>> Whereas from 4.3.14, it suggests it's possible.
>>
>> I'll look into it and send the new text for review.
>>>
>>> Am I wrong?
>>>
>>> 7.1 There is a type iterceptors --> interceptors
>>
>> thanks.
>>>
>>> BTW, there is a typo p23: Davd should be David ;-)
>>
>> Thanks! It's actually a copy-and-paste error :( (David, can you ask
>> jcp people to fix your name in the EG list?).
>>>
>>> Hope it helps
>>
>> Of course. Thanks again,
>> -marina
>>> Jean-Louis
>>>
>>> 2012/1/11 Marina Vatkina <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com
>>> <mailto:marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>>
>>>
>>> Hi Antonio,
>>>
>>>
>>> Antonio Goncalves wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Here are a few comments/questions (mostly about Interceptor
>>> and Transaction specification) :
>>>
>>> * Will interceptors still be inside the EJB spec or will there
>>> be a seperate spec ? It feels like JPA 1.0 when it was bundled
>>> with EJBs. Now that interceptors can be applied to managed
>>> beans, couldn't it be move to the Java EE spec instead of the
>>> EJB (like the Managed Bean and Transaction support)?
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a note (still marked XXX to be filled in if there is an
>>> update to the Interceptors spec) under 1.5:
>>>
>>> "The Interceptors document defines the contracts and requirements
>>> for the use and implementation of interceptors. These contracts,
>>> while required by the core EJB specification, are described in a
>>> way that is independent of EJB in order to faciliate their use by
>>> other enterprise Java technologies. Future revisions to the
>>> Interceptors specification[38] will be undertaken independently of
>>> EJB [XXX To be confirmed]."
>>>
>>> Should I remove the text in []?
>>>
>>>
>>> * Chapter 6 (Persistence) is blank and just refers to the JPA
>>> specification. Why don't we do the same for interceptors and
>>> support for transaction ? They could be left "blank" and just
>>> refer the seperate interceptor and transaction spec.
>>>
>>>
>>> Transactions chapter will probably stay as the new annotations
>>> will be different, with the ref to the JTA spec, and may be some
>>> generic text replaced with the pointers to that spec. But the
>>> interceptors chapter might be a good idea as you are not the first
>>> one looking for the clarity in this area.
>>>
>>> What do others think?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> -marina
>>>
>>>
>>> Antonio
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 21:54, Marina Vatkina
>>> <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com <mailto:marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>
>>> <mailto:marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com
>>> <mailto:marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Happy New Year everybody!
>>>
>>> This is a friendly reminder that I'm still waiting for the
>>> reviews.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> -marina
>>>
>>>
>>> Marina Vatkina wrote:
>>>
>>> Experts,
>>>
>>> I uploaded EDR versions of both books of the EJB 3.2
>>> spec.
>>> Please review the changes before the books go to the
>>> JCP site
>>> for an official submission. If you don't have any
>>> comments,
>>> please let me know if you are ok with the EDR in its
>>> current
>>> state.
>>>
>>> The books have the change bars (the Optional Chapters
>>> changes
>>> are very minor) and all the changes are listed in the
>>> Revision
>>> History sections.
>>>
>>> Other than all the cleanups and clarifications (thank
>>> you very
>>> much to everybody who helped with this activity), the
>>> following had been added to/changed in the spec (the
>>> corresponding parts of the revision history are
>>> prepended with
>>> *New:*) :
>>>
>>> * Added asynchronous session bean invocations and
>>> non-persistent EJB Timer Service support to EJB 3.2
>>> Lite.
>>> * Removed restriction to obtain the current class
>>> loader;
>>> changed ‘must not’ to ‘should exercises caution’ when
>>> using
>>> the Java I/O package.
>>> * Added support for the lifecycle callback interceptor
>>> methods
>>> of stateful session beans to execute in a transaction
>>> context
>>> determined by the bean’s transaction management type
>>> and any
>>> applicable transaction attribute.
>>>
>>> Have a nice reading!
>>>
>>> -marina
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Antonio Goncalves
>>> Software architect and Java Champion
>>>
>>> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> | Twitter
>>> <http://twitter.com/agoncal> | Blog
>>> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/AntonioGoncalves> | LinkedIn
>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris JUG
>>> <http://www.parisjug.org>
>>>
>>>