Hi Antonio,
On 3/5/2012 12:16 AM, Antonio Goncalves wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Here are some comments after reading the document :
>
> * */EE.5 Resources, Naming, and Injection/*. The introduction of the chapter talks about Resource, EJB, PersistenceUnit
> and PersistenceContext annotation but nothing about @Inject (only later from EE.5.20 Bean Manager References). Maybe we
> could also introduce @Inject (and point to the CDI/JSR303 specs) no ? It seams funny to not talk about it in the
> introduction of a chapter that mentions injection.
>
I agree. I will add this to the introduction.
> * /*EE.5.2.5 Annotations and Injection*/. "For all classes except application client main classes, the fields or methods
> must not be static." I have heard that CDI 1.1 was looking at injecting beans to statis fields. Am I right ? If this is
> the case we could also mention it.
>
I'm not sure -- At least I'm not seeing it in the latest CDI spec draft that I have. We will need to track this however.
> * In */EE.5.21 Support for Dependency Injection/* it would be useful to have a section listing all the objects that can
> be injected out of the box (without any producer) by CDI : UserTransaction, Principal, Validator...
>
I think this belongs more appropriately in the CDI spec -- i.e., it would be better to avoid the duplication.
> * */EE.5.17 Resource Definition and Configuration/*. Here we talk about DataSourceDefinition,
> JMSConnectionFactoryDefinition, JMSDestinationDefinition, MailSessionDefinition, and ConnectorResourceDefinition. We've
> already talked about it but it is still unclear why we can't have CDI Alternatives with resource definition. Either we
> explicitiely explain why we can't have it, or we try to make it work (this would be a very interesting feature).
>
This is more properly a CDI issue, isn't it?
> Another question about resource definition. In which packages are MailSessionDefinition and ConnectorResourceDefinition
> annotations ? Are they part of JavaMail and JCA spec ? Have JavaMail and JCA been updated to add such annotations ?
>
I believe that that is where they best belong. We will need to update those packages.
> * */EE.7 Interoperability/*. We talk about several protocols. Does anybody know if there was any progress made for
> WebSockets ? If progress has been made should we mention it in this section ?
>
WebSockets is just finishing its JSR ballot today! You can sign up to help it make progress :-)
> * */EE.9.5 Requirements for All Java EE Profiles/*. It's written :
>
> The following functionality is required to be supported in all Java EE profiles:
> •JNDI “java:” naming context (see Section EE.5.2, “JNDI Naming Context”)
> •Java Transaction API (JTA)
>
> Do we really want JTA to be in all profiles ? What is the reason for that ?
>
This was a decision made by the Java EE 6 Expert Group. Transactions are a key element of
enterprise computing, but I am not otherwise familiar with the reason for including JTA per se.
Right now, in the absence of other Java EE profiles on the horizon, we don't see a strong reason
to change this, but it could be considered in future.
thanks again,
-Linda
>
> Antonio
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 01:06, Linda DeMichiel <linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com <mailto:linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com>> wrote:
>
> I've uploaded a new specification draft to our project Documents
> area, http://java.net/projects/__javaee-spec/downloads <http://java.net/projects/javaee-spec/downloads>.
>
> This draft incorporates changes related to support for new resource
> definition metadata, tenant ids, and other aspects of cloud support
> in Java EE 7.
>
> The most significant of these changes are in chapters 2 (Platform Overview)
> and 5 (Resources, Naming, and Injection). There are also changes
> related to support for alternate deployment descriptors external to the
> application, as well as a number of clarifications.
>
> Please review these changes carefully and post your feedback.
>
> The changebars reflect changes since the Java EE 6 final draft.
> Changebars reflect all changes-- both editorial and substantive.
> Substantive changes and clarifications are summarized in Appendix B of
> the document.
>
> I will post an updated Web Profile document shortly.
>
> There are no changes to the Managed Beans specification document thus
> far.
>
> thanks,
>
> -Linda
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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>