Definitely when we added the Embedded EJBContainer API I had hoped it was just the beginning. A very major step in the right direction.
I guess my question at this point is, do we want a more generic looking API that we can grow to include more specs as we see fit, or do we want to continue copying and rebranding the same basic bootstrapping pattern into the various specifications that might choose to opt-into being part of "the embeddable movement" (for lack of a better phrase).
In OpenEJB/TomEE have one "EJBContainerProvider" to do EJB/CDI and one to do the entire Web Profile. It looks strange to do that much under "EJB", but it functions fine. Effectively the Embedded EJBContainer API is good enough. The only problem is it has EJB in the name. The original names I had proposed were "EmbeddableContainer" and "EmbeddableContainerProvider".
Perhaps now that we have all put work into embeddable containers we might be brave enough to go for a 'javax.enterprise.EmbeddableContainer' API.
-David
On Feb 11, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Antonio Goncalves wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Talking about jar & war packaging, something (different) came to my mind : Servlet doesn't have a standard WebContainer API.
>
> A few days ago I've posted the following on the Servlet 3.1 mailing list :
>
> http://java.net/projects/servlet-spec/lists/users/archive/2012-02/message/5
>
> Do you think that makes sense ? For me it does but am I the only one ?
>
> --
> Antonio Goncalves
> Software architect and Java Champion
>
> Web site | Twitter | Blog | LinkedIn | Paris JUG