No Bill… you were not nice… bring it off line if you want to discuss. Otherwise… lets move on.
Jeff
On Oct 29, 2012, at 6:24 PM, Bill Shannon <bill.shannon_at_oracle.com> wrote:
> Did you think I wasn't being nice? I explained how I intended my words to be interpreted and asked you if it was clear. I meant nothing more than that.
>
> And my statement wasn't followed by the discussion asking about replacement, it was preceded by that discussion. You need to read the included messages in the correct order. My message was a reply to that message asking about replacement.
>
> Jeff Genender wrote on 10/29/12 16:23:
>>
>> Ummm… yeah…
>>
>> and it was followed via the discussion that insinuated replacement of JAX-ws with JAX-RS.
>>
>> Bill lets be nice on the list… clear?
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 29, 2012, at 5:13 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure how you read that into what I said.
>>>
>>> The clause "is definitely worth considering at some point" applies to the part of the sentence that precedes it, i.e., "Having JAX-WS endpoints be CDI managed beans, with all the associated advantages".
>>>
>>> Clear?
>>>
>>> Jeff Genender wrote on 10/29/12 16:03:
>>>>
>>>> Bill, can you please clarify "is definitely worth considering at some point". You mean dropping JAX-WS from EE in the future? I certainly hope that is not the case…
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 29, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> JAX-WS is not being replaced by JAX-RS. We have no current plans to prune JAX-WS.
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, we're not planning big updates to JAX-WS, mostly because we're busy doing other things and resources are finite. Having JAX-WS endpoints be CDI managed beans, with all the associated advantages, is definitely worth considering at some point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Antonio Goncalves wrote on 10/29/12 12:55:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hum... Werner, what you are saying is very important : is the EE EG clearly saying "we will not update JAX-WS because it's being replaced by JAX-RS" ? Prunning a technologie has a strong meaning but what do we want to say about JAX-WS (and JSP) ? "it's not prunned but we are not updating it" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we should agree on the future of JAX-WS (and why not JSP) and express it loudly to the community. But it will be strange to have method level validation, injection, interception work in every spec, except JAX-WS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Werner Keil <werner.keil_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Emmanuel/All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for that, and to Antonio for sharing.
>>>>>> As JAX-WS 2.0 is only in MR and there is no "real" update scheduled any time soon, that seems like a problem not so easy to tackle.
>>>>>> JAX-WS unlike RS has grown out of fashion to many, though I know first hand, large companies still use it and SOAP a lot, especially in projects already in production.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless there was a demand and consensus to make such "soon legacy" JSRs optional at the very least with EE 8, maybe a "2.1" release could use CDI after all, but of course that depends on demand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Werner
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 29.10.2012 19:51 schrieb "Antonio Goncalves" <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com>:
>>>>>> Emmanuel's answer (he has no write access to the ML) :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The Java EE interception technology does not allow to intercept methods
>>>>>> calls when calling a method from within the bean. That's a general
>>>>>> problem that applies for all Java EE so at least that is consistent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it makes a lot of sense to support JAX-WS. But JAX-WS has no
>>>>>> integration with CDI so we could not ride along the CDI integration to
>>>>>> validate method calls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> About servlets, I don't see the validation of methods called by the
>>>>>> servlet container as very useful. In your example, when is a request
>>>>>> object null?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I discussed the JAXB validation integration possibilities with the spec
>>>>>> lead a long time ago but unfortunately, I don't think either of us
>>>>>> worked further on the subject. That is something I've seen asked several
>>>>>> times by the community though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Emmanuel"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A few months ago in the EJB 3.2 EG ML we talked about aligning BV in EJBs. We've also exchanged a few emails with Emmanuel Bernard (CCed) about BV aligment in other specification. As a developer I expect BV method level validation to work in every EE specification. What do you think ? If it's the case, I would expect this to work :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @WebServlet
>>>>>> public class MyServlet {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> public void doGet(@NotNull HttpServletRequest req, @NotNull HttpServletResponse resp) {}
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @WebService
>>>>>> public class MyWS {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @WebMethod
>>>>>> @NotNull
>>>>>> public String methodA(@WebParam(name = "myParam") @NotNull String s )
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So that means a JAX-WS update will have to be made (JAX-WS 2.3 ?). With WebServices that would also mean that BV will be integrated with JAXB (but I think it's planned, Emmanuel correct me if I'm wrong).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think ?
>>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With the new Bean Validation 1.1 method-level validation I expect something to work out of the box (with or without CDI) :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Stateless
>>>>>> public class AccountService {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> public Account get(@NotNull Account model) { }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for Stateful bean the question is "is there a possible integration between BV and EJB like JPA or JSF" ? For example, in the following code, shall we automatically validate the bean on @Remove (like @PreRemove on JPA) :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Stateful
>>>>>> public class ShoppingCart {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @NotNull
>>>>>> private List<CartItem> cartItems;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Remove
>>>>>> public voide checkout { // validate cartItems ? }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't really see the point in something like that, but I might miss something. Could there be another possible integration ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Marina Vatkina <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Experts,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you know, EJB spec currently doesn't support Bean Validation. Do we want to change that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me know if you think that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a) BV should be supported for EJBs without CDI being enabled (probably with an opt-in flag to be backward compatible)
>>>>>> b) BV should be supported for EJBs only if CDI is enabled
>>>>>> c) there is no need for standardizing BV with respect to EJBs
>>>>>> d) you don't care either way :(
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>> -marina
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Antonio Goncalves
>>>>>> Software architect and Java Champion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Paris JUG | Devoxx France
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Antonio Goncalves
>>>>>> Software architect and Java Champion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Paris JUG | Devoxx France
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Antonio Goncalves
>>>>>> Software architect and Java Champion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Paris JUG | Devoxx France
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>