On 10 Feb 2012, at 19:11, Bill Shannon wrote:
> Thanks, Pete.
>
> With regards to:
>
>> Finally, were a vendor to invent a clever way to handle this, as an optional
> > extension, we could incorporate this into a later rev of Java EE without
> > breaking backwards compatibility, which is always a good thing (don't preclude
> > unknown futures).
>
> With option #1, all Java EE products would be required to detect the
> error of using the new transaction annotations on an EJB bean. That
> would not leave much room for a vendor to invent a clever way to handle
> this.
>
> Perhaps what you really want is that the behavior in this case would be
> undefined, and that vendors would be free to "add value" by handling this
> case differently? (Note that we generally tend to try to avoid such
> situations because they kind of destroy the whole Write Once Run Anywhere
> value proposition.)
Agreed. What I was really thinking was a vendor might provide this an option that could be turned on (off by default) should a user want to use it - of course, this would be a spec-incompatible mode for the app server to run in.
So, I would agree we define it as an error.