Thanks, Linda. That does help. As long as we're clear that the platform
spec doesn't require JCA in the app client, then we're good.
I have no problem with leaving connection-factory and administered-object
in the XSD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, Java EE and Java Persistence API (JPA) architect
mail: sutter_at_us.ibm.com, Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM
http://webspherepersistence.blogspot.com/
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
http://openjpa.apache.org/
Linda DeMichiel <linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com> wrote on 05/07/2015 03:21:53
PM:
> From: Linda DeMichiel <linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com>
> To: jsr366-experts_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> Date: 05/07/2015 03:22 PM
> Subject: [javaee-spec users] [jsr366-experts] Re: Re: Java EE 7
> Application Client and JCA
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> I think the Platform spec is clear that JCA is not required in
> app client containers.
>
> AFAICT the Connector spec describes use in app client containers,
> although such support is not required by the Platform spec.
> In view of that, I don't think it is unreasonable to include these
> elements in the app client XSD. If you think connection-factory
> should be removed from the XSD, we should discuss in the context
> of Java EE 8 changes. I think administered-object belongs in
> any case since support for JMS is required in app client containers.
>
> regards,
>
> -Linda
>
>
> On 5/7/15 1:14 PM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
> > Hi Linda,
> > Thanks for the reply. Although I'm glad that you agree with the
> > inconsistencies and you plan to clean these up in the MR, I'm still
> > confused as to whether JCA should be expected to be supported in the
> > Application Client Container. Your reference to table EE.6-1 is an
even
> > better, more clear declaration that JCA should not be supported in the
> > application client. But, if you update the Figure EE.10-1 to be
> > consistent with the XSD, then won't that confict with Table EE.6-1? I
> > mean both "connection-factory" and "administered-object" are defined
by
> > JCA.... So, I'm still confused on the expectations.
> >
>
>
> >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Kevin Sutter
> > STSM, Java EE and Java Persistence API (JPA) architect
> > mail: sutter_at_us.ibm.com, Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM
> > http://webspherepersistence.blogspot.com/
> > phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
> > http://openjpa.apache.org/
> >
> >
> > Linda DeMichiel <linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com> wrote on 05/07/2015
> > 02:12:25 PM:
> >
> > > From: Linda DeMichiel <linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com>
> > > To: jsr366-experts_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> > > Date: 05/07/2015 02:13 PM
> > > Subject: [javaee-spec users] [jsr366-experts] Re: Java EE 7
> > > Application Client and JCA
> > >
> > > Hi Kevin,
> > >
> > > Figure EE.10-1 is indeed inconsistent with the XSD. I will correct
> > > it in the MR draft. The figure should have "connection-factory"
> > > instead of "connector-resource". Figure EE.10-1 should also have
an
> > > entry for "administered-object" in order to be consistent with the
XSD
> > > (which I will also correct).
> > >
> > > Figure EE.8-3 has the same connector-resource inconsistency and
> > > will also be fixed.
> > >
> > > With regard to requirements, the Java EE spec chapter 6
(specifically
> > > Table EE.6-1) states that support for Connector 1.7 is not required
> > > for App Client containers, although the Connector spec itself
> > > describes semantics for when this is supported. In view of that,
> > > I think it is reasonable that connection-factory be an element of
> > > the XSD.
> > >
> > > I believe the G.2 reference was specific to security contracts.
> > >
> > > Hope that helps clarify. And thanks for pointing out the bugs.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > -Linda
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/6/15 1:13 PM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I'm finding some discrepancies between the specs and the XSDs for
the
> > > > application client, and I'm wondering what the real expectations
> > were...
> > > >
> > > > For example, in Figure EE 10-1, there is a reference to a
> > > > "connector-resource" element. There is also a note that says to
"see
> > > > the schema for details". But, the application-client_7.xsd
contains no
> > > > such connector_resource element.
> > > >
> > > > In a similar vein, the application-client_7.xsd contains
> > definitions for
> > > > the "connection-factory" and "administered-object" elements, but
these
> > > > are not defined in Figure EE 10-1.
> > > >
> > > > So, then I pursued the JCA 1.7 spec to find out if there was any
more
> > > > detail, and that seems to have conflicting information as well.
> > Section
> > > > 6.10.1 seems to imply support for the Application Client. But,
there
> > > > was an update in G.2 that states, "Section 16.2: Removed
application
> > > > client container requirements for supporting connector contracts"
But,
> > > > maybe that was just for the security contracts?
> > > >
> > > > Both "connection-factory" and "administered-object" elements are
> > > > referenced in the JCA 1.7 manual, but only as part of the “Common
Java
> > > > EE 7 XML Schema definitions”. They don't explicitly indicate
whether
> > > > this support is expected on the application client.
> > > >
> > > > Any insights?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Kevin Sutter
> > > > STSM, Java EE and Java Persistence API (JPA) architect
> > > > mail: sutter_at_us.ibm.com, Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM
> > > > http://webspherepersistence.blogspot.com/
> > > > phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
> > > > http://openjpa.apache.org/
> > >
>