Looks good. Last "and" should be an "or" though...
On 1/20/2012 11:18 AM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
> 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>
>>>>
>>>>