In my mind, that was also clear EJB lite implementation are able to provide
additional features.
That's the case for some implementations like Apache OpenEJB.
Anyway, you are right, we can maybe clarify that point a bit more.
Jean-Louis
2012/9/26 Florent BENOIT <Florent.Benoit_at_ow2.org>
> Yes we should be able to provide EJB lite implementaton with additional
> features. If it's not clear this should be clarified.
> Also EJB MDB /JCA is a good usecase.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Florent
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Jeremy Bauer <jrbauer_at_us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Experts,
>>
>> The specification currently states this regarding the EJB lite subset:
>>
>> <chapter 16>
>> The set of required APIs is divided into two categories: a complete set
>> and a minimum set. The minimum set is also referred to as “EJB 3.2 Lite.”
>> This reflects the ability of a Server Provider to provide an EJB 3.2
>> container within a product that implements the Full Java EE Platform or
>> within a subset profile such as the Java EE Web Profile. The complete set
>> is required within an implementation of the Full Java EE Platform. The
>> minimum set must be supported within an implementation of the Java EE Web
>> Profile. Profile requirements are described within the Java EE Platform
>> specification [ 12 ]
>>
>> ...
>>
>> For these reasons this specification defines a minimal subset of the EJB
>> API known as EJB 3.2 Lite. EJB 3.2 Lite is not a product. Rather, it is a
>> proper subset of the full EJB 3.2 API that includes a small, powerful
>> selection of EJB features suitable for writing portable transactional
>> business logic. The definition of EJB 3.2 Lite gives vendors an option to
>> implement only a portable subset of the EJB API within their product. The
>> vastly reduced size of the feature set makes it suitable for inclusion in a
>> wider range of Java products, many of which have much smaller installation
>> and runtime footprints than a typical full Java EE implementation.
>> </chapter 16>
>>
>> Can this be interpreted as though a vendor could provide EJB lite with
>> additional features such as EJB timers, but not a full EJB implementation?
>> The specification doesn't seem to explicitly prohibit this. If the
>> specification does require either EJB lite or a full EJB implementation, I
>> think we should consider allowing this type of configuration in EJB 3.2.
>> The JCA specification (section 3.5) has a precedent for this already. The
>> JCA specification defines a minimal subset of features and then requires
>> additional features based on the availability of other dependent component
>> specification implementations. For example, vendors must implement JCA
>> message inflow based on the availability of a MessageEndpointFactory
>> implementation. If a vendor were to implement the EJB lite minimal subset
>> + MDBs, a JCA subset implementation would then need to implement message
>> inflow in order to support this configuration. Thoughts?
>>
>> -Jeremy
>
>
>