jsr342-experts@javaee-spec.java.net

[jsr342-experts] Re: WebContainer API on Servlets

From: Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:39:59 +0100

I agree that the generic Embeddable Container might not be needed at this
stage... but if you could have a WebContainer API in Servlet 3.1 that would
be great

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 23:37, David Blevins <david.blevins_at_gmail.com>wrote:

> That's great news about GlassFish. I'm more than thrilled to hear we are
> all working towards this.
>
> It doesn't need to happen this release. When we added the Embeddable EJB
> Container API, I suspected it would be a couple years of catch up before
> we'd see another major revision of that concept.
>
> Knowing we can all see the goal is good enough.
>
> If I were to make any other comment it would be it might be nice to
> compare notes and get feedback sooner rather than later. Maybe a BoF or
> something.
>
>
> -David
>
> On Feb 13, 2012, at 12:59 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
>
> > We have a more general "embeddable" API for GlassFish as well.
> > It's gone through several iterations. I'm not sure it's yet
> > sufficient to cover all the use cases we have in mind, but
> > fleshing out the API to cover all those cases is *a lot* of
> > work. And it's something that benefits greatly from experience,
> > which we don't have a lot of yet.
> >
> > Bottom line - I think this is interesting, but more work than
> > we can consider for this release.
> >
> >
> > David Blevins wrote on 02/11/12 12:50:
> >> 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
> >>
> >
>
>


-- 
Antonio Goncalves
Software architect and Java Champion
Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> |
Twitter<http://twitter.com/agoncal>|
Blog <http://feeds.feedburner.com/AntonioGoncalves> |
LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal>| Paris
JUG <http://www.parisjug.org>