Putting timeline issues aside, can we get the right people actively involved in the discussion?
-David
On Feb 4, 2013, at 2:21 PM, Marina Vatkina <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com> wrote:
> A better example might've helped, but it can be too late now: the JCA spec is finishing the MR updates this week, and the JCA spec lead felt that it's a too big of a change for an MR update.
>
> -marina
>
> On 2/4/13 2:19 PM, Carlo de Wolf wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> Talked it over with David. This is all about a more flexible way to specify the contract between MDB and RA. The "prompt" and "port" bits are just bad examples of usage and I think David will fix those up in his example.
>>
>> So at the end of the day it would just mean that the result of MessageEndpointFactory#createEndpoint would be an object exposing the same method as a no-interface view. While the bean class itself optionally gets set on the activation spec.
>>
>> I'm all in favor to get this in.
>>
>> Carlo
>>
>> On 02/04/2013 10:49 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>> Noticed the related JIRA (http://java.net/jira/browse/EJB_SPEC-60) was marked as "Future version"
>>>
>>> Would be really great if we could get this in. There's been great support for it in the EJB over the last year and it is our 3rd most popular issue:
>>>
>>> http://java.net/jira/browse/EJB_SPEC#selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project%3Apopularissues-panel
>>>
>>> Given all the work we put in and that there will be a Connector 1.7 after all and how small of a change it is with a big upside, I really hope we can get it in.
>>>
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>
>