Hi,
I agree you should clarify this point.
But In my opinion, there is a risk for the portability if there is no
distinction between a strict EJB 3.2 Lite implementation and an
improved implementation. I try to explain myself:
If an implementation can support EJB 3.2Lite and other features: it’s
no more an EJB 3.2 Lite implementation neither a full EJB
implementation. The risk is a multiplication of implementations with
only a common part of features (EJB 3.2 Lite) plus different features
regarding the full EJB API. This could be a problem if we have to
change of implementation (ok we don’t do this every day) or to choose
an implementation.
May be you have name those intermediate implementations that support
EJB 3.2 Lite + some others features from the full EJB API, say EJB API
“on demand”, would that be only for the certification of an
implementation
Regards,
Alex