Well, it's just that the Interceptor 1.1 spec is at the same place (and
same JSR number) as EJBs :
http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/final/jsr318/index.html
Same thing happened with JPA 1.0 which was "bundled" with EJB 3.0.
I think if the message is "use interceptors everywhere in your managed
beans" then the spec should have it's own JSR number and not be "bundled"
with the EJB JSR
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Werner Keil <werner.keil_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure, what you mean with the EJB relationship?
>
> The only JSR that is active and alive for this is 250:
> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=250
> Which states explicitely, it was meant for SE and EE from the start.
> JSR 305 has produced a rather unlucky @Nonnull annotation there, too, but
> it is defunct and unless a mentioned JSR 308 checker implementation revives
> it it probably better be pruned and removed from a future Java version.
>
> Werner
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Antonio Goncalves <
> antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> BTW Bill, if the Interceptor spec has just a MR that means it will still
>> stay bundle with the EJB JSR ? Shouldn't it be better to let it
>> evolve separately from EJBs ? (such JPA 2.0 at the time) It's always
>> better for adoption to see that a spec is not bundle to another one (it
>> creates confusion)
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Antonio Goncalves <
>> antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Would it be possible to prioritize @Singletons at @Startup for example
>>> instead of using @Depends :
>>>
>>> @Singleton
>>> @Startup
>>> @Priority(100)
>>> public class MyVeryFirstSingleton {}
>>>
>>> @Singleton
>>> @Startup
>>> @Priority(4500)
>>> public class MyVeryLastSingleton {}
>>>
>>> If yes, what about servlets ?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:31 AM, Bill Shannon <bill.shannon_at_oracle.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Antonio Goncalves wrote on 12/08/2012 03:23 AM:
>>>> > Hi,
>>>> >
>>>> > Why would such annotation be in the Commons Annotations JSR
>>>> (javax.annotation
>>>> > package I suppose) instead of javax.interceptor ?
>>>> We believe this might be useful in other cases as well.
>>>>
>>>> > If the Interceptor spec evolves (and it looks like it, to a 1.2 I
>>>> suppose)
>>>> > will we be taking it out of the EJB JSR and create a new JSR just for
>>>> > interceptors ?
>>>> It's already a separate spec. We'll be updating it using the JCP
>>>> Maintenance
>>>> Release process.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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>