One quick note: I think I incorporated all requests (including packaging
and JAX-RS) in the updated table.
-marina
On 3/6/13 4:26 PM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
> Experts,
>
> The document on the spec download page named " EJB API Groups
> Definitions and Rules with Embeddable Container
> <http://java.net/projects/ejb-spec/downloads/download/p416-435.pdf>"
> contains the updated version of the 16.1 section up-to the updated
> section 18.3.1 in the Embeddable Container to make sure no one expects
> it to support .war files by default.
>
> Unfortunately the FrameMaker didn't allow me to pick and choose the
> pages to save as a pdf file. So the pages that you need to pay
> attention to are 2-4 (417-419) and the last one (435).
>
> If you have any concerns, please say so ASAP.
>
> thanks,
> -marina
>
> <http://java.net/projects/ejb-spec/downloads/download/p416-435.pdf>
> On 3/4/13 5:46 PM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
>> Experts,
>>
>> I've written the rules for adding support for EJB features in
>> addition to the EJB Lite, i.e. to allow EJB containers some
>> flexibility in-between EJB Lite and EJB Full requirements. Those of
>> you who were asking for it, please do your part and review it asap.
>>
>> The proposed changes are in the section 16.1 "EJB Lite" and the
>> corresponding part of the spec is available in the project download
>> area under the title " EJB API Groups Definitions and Rules
>> <http://java.net/projects/ejb-spec/downloads/download/p416-418.pdf>".
>>
>> The changes span only 3 pages, with the changes on the 1st page are
>> to remove "3.2" version from the text. I.e. it shouldn't take long to
>> review them ;)
>>
>> The major changes are on the pages 2 and 3 (417 and 418). They
>> include replacing the table 19 "Required contents of EJB Lite and
>> Full EJB API" with a new table (also #19) called "EJB API Groups".
>> These are the groups of features that can be supported only as a
>> whole group, and EJB Lite being just one of them. The section 16.1.1,
>> "Support for Other EJB API Groups in an EJB Lite Container" defines
>> additional rules.
>>
>> One side effect of this change is to remove fine-grained options for
>> the BMP/CMP support defined in Chapter 2 of the optional document
>> (i.e. BMP/CMP should be supported all or none).
>>
>> Unless I hear otherwise in the next day or so (the PFD submission
>> date is this week), I'll include the proposed changes into the spec
>> and adjust the optional doc accordingly.
>>
>> Best,
>> -marina
>>
>>
>>
>>
>