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 :
>>>
>>>
>>> *_at_WebServlet*
>>> public class MyServlet {
>>>
>>> public void doGet(*_at_NotNull* HttpServletRequest req, @NotNull
>>> HttpServletResponse resp) {}
>>> }
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> *_at_WebService*
>>> public class MyWS {
>>>
>>> @WebMethod
>>> *_at_NotNull*
>>> public String methodA(@WebParam(name = "myParam") *_at_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(*_at_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 {
>>>>
>>>> *_at_NotNull*
>>>> private List<CartItem> cartItems;
>>>>
>>>> *_at_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 <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/agoncal>|
>>> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris JUG<http://www.parisjug.org> |
>>> Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Antonio Goncalves
>> Software architect and Java Champion
>>
>> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/agoncal>|
>> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris JUG<http://www.parisjug.org> |
>> Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr>
>>
>
--
Antonio Goncalves
Software architect and Java Champion
Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> |
Twitter<http://twitter.com/agoncal>|
LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris
JUG<http://www.parisjug.org> |
Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr>