Bill,
* You need to describe what problem needs to be solved that's more
important to the success of the Java EE platform than providing PaaS
support.
- Not being an independent myself anymore, I'm not sure I can
legitimately answer this question, but let me try (without sounding like
I am doing Java EE bashing). The biggest burning need is to provide a
standard way of CDI XML configuration, including using EJB services in
managed beans. In broader terms, from the perspective of someone using
say Spring, the Java EE XML DD system does seem quite antiquated and
unimpressive. It's also something that a larger number of adopters are
likely to encounter as opposed to the folks actually likely to use PaaS
today, especially outside resource tier APIs like JPA and JMS.
Bare in mind, I am playing devil's advocate here having started this
discussion with the statement that I am not sure that this is a priority
right now (just as I'm not sure PaaS is really a priority either).
Cheers,
Reza
On 7/18/2011 5:48 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
> Antonio Goncalves wrote on 07/16/11 12:31 AM:
>> I know EE 7 is time driven and we can't put all the features into it.
>> Configuration is an important topic, but as you say Bill, not as easy
>> as it
>> seems because it has to fit with the existing EE deployment
>> descriptor. Why not
>> follow the Bean Validation 1.0 spec ? In Apendix C of the spec, the
>> EG decided
>> to make a proposal for method-level validation. It even starts with the
>> following sentences :
>>
>> "This proposition has not been integrated into the core specification
>> and is not
>> part of it. It remains here for archaeological
>> purposes and will be seriously considered for a future revision of this
>> specification."
>>
>> Why not follow this example ? The EE 7 EG could start talking about
>> it, write a
>> proposal, either we have time and it goes into the spec, or we don't
>> and it
>> stays in the Apendix. The nice thing with that, it that we put into
>> writing what
>> we discussed. This way, if configuration has to wait EE 8, at least
>> we will have
>> something to start with.
>
> I'm hoping our new approach to transparency will allow us to do a
> better job
> of this. I don't think we need such a proposal as part of the spec;
> we can
> put it in the java.net project so that others can review it and so
> that it's
> available as a starting point for the next expert group.
>
>> This being said, I think configuration is a more important topic that
>> PAAS/SAAS
>> (which I find a bit too young, but I've already said that) and should
>> make its
>> way into EE 7.
>
> Just saying "configuration" is too imprecise. We already have
> configuration.
> Changing it so that you use a different syntax to do the same things
> doesn't
> seem important. You need to describe what problem needs to be solved
> that's
> more important to the success of the Java EE platform than providing PaaS
> support.
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3773 - Release Date: 07/18/11
>
>