Hi,
After re-reading the spec, it's clear that EJB 3.2 Lite is a
well-defined subset of EJB features. So I don’t think there is a need
in the EJB spec to clarify that a vendor can implement more features
than EJB Lite. If a vendor chooses to implements the minimal EJB Lite
and other features, his product has to be considered as an EJB Lite
“certified” implementation offering other features. When we think about
the EJB Lite (or even the full EJB), we know exactly what features are
guaranteed to be portable. In my opinion it’s better for the EJB
specification to consider EJB Lite a well-defined subset of EJB
features than a minimal subset. In a case of a standard, I have less
problem with the "no required feature" than with the notion of minimal
subset.
Regards,
Alex