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/
>