users@javaee-spec.java.net

[javaee-spec users] [jsr366-experts] Re: Re: Java EE 7 MR

From: Kevin Sutter <sutter_at_us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:25:05 -0600

Linda DeMichiel <linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com> wrote on 02/11/2015 07:44:07
PM:

> From: Linda DeMichiel <linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com>
> To: jsr366-experts_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> Date: 02/11/2015 07:49 PM
> Subject: [jsr366-experts] Re: [javaee-spec users] Re: Java EE 7 MR
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On 2/11/15 12:25 PM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
> > Thanks, Linda. I missed this query from Bill. My preference is
> > "B. Any class that also supports injection (table EE-5.1)" from Bill's
> > original inquiry. Bill's note indicates that the responses to his
> > inquiry were mixed between B and D. But, it looks like this MR is
going
> > with option
> > "C. Any class in the application package (ear/war/jar file)"? Are we
> > too late to re-open this discussion?
> >
>
> Well, yes and no....
>
> This clarification was intended to resolve an ambiguity in the spec,
> where some sections (specifically 8.5.2) indicated that all
> classes that are part of the application package need to be
> scanned, but others (e.g., 5.2.5) made reference to classes supporting
> injection.
>
> We believe that option C is therefore the most consistent with the
> intent of the spec, as well as the more straightforward to implement,
> particularly since at deployment (before CDI kicks in) one may not be
> able to easily identify what is or is not a CDI managed bean.
>
> -Linda

Linda,
Thanks for the background on the ambiguity. But, my preference would be
to either leave the ambiguity as-is for this MR, or somehow indicate that
Option B (any class that supports injection) is the "minimum" requirement.
 If you can't tell, we've been limiting our annotation processing to only
those classes that support injection. We have a concern about the
performance impact of this additional scanning. And, we have a concern
about backwards compatibility -- items that accidentally skated by in the
past may now be flagged by this additional annotation scanning. This
change seems to be introducing too much impact for an MR. I would prefer
that we wait for this type of change until Java EE 8.

Thanks, Kevin

>
>
>
>
> >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Kevin Sutter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Linda DeMichiel <linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com>
> > To: jsr366-experts_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> > Date: 02/11/2015 01:58 PM
> > Subject: [javaee-spec users] [jsr366-experts] Re: Java EE 7 MR
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Kevin,
> >
> > It means any class in the ear/war/jar, depending on how the
application
> > is packaged. It does not include classes in external libraries.
> >
> > Please see
> > https://java.net/projects/javaee-spec/lists/jsr366-experts/
> archive/2015-02/message/1
> > for further on this.
> >
> > -Linda
> >
> >
> > On 2/11/15 11:49 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
> > > Hi Antonio and Linda,
> > > Does this "on any class in the application package" really mean
"any
> > > class"? Or, is this just trying to expand the current wording to
also
> > > include other component classes like CDI beans that are in the
> > > application? I'm concerned about the implication of scanning every
> > > class in the application for annotations.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Kevin Sutter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com>
> > > To: jsr366-experts_at_javaee-spec.java.net
> > > Date: 02/11/2015 05:27 AM
> > > Subject: [jsr366-experts] Re: [javaee-spec users] Java EE 7 MR
> > >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Linda,
> > >
> > > I like the "on any class in the application package." makes it
clearer
> > > and simpler.
> > >
> > > Thanks for that
> > > Antonio
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 10:39 PM, Linda DeMichiel
> > > <_linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com_ <mailto:linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com>>
wrote:
> > >
> > > We've been accumulating a few fixes to minor errors in the Java
> > > EE 7 specification along with some clarifications that we've been
> > > discussing recently in the group. We plan to submit these to the
JCP
> > > as part of the spec Maintenance process. I've attached a list of
the
> > > proposed changes below.
> > >
> > > Note that because these changes do not impact the RI or TCK, but
only
> > > update the current specification document, they do not define a new
> > > spec version, but rather result in a "Rev A" of the Java EE 7
> > > specification.
> > >
> > > I plan to submit these to the JCP at the end of the week to
initiate
> > > the Maintenance Review process. Please let me know before then if
I
> > > missed anything or if you have any comments.
> > >
> > > For your convenience, I have uploaded a draft of the spec
> > > that includes the proposed changes to our project downloads area,_
> > > __https://java.net/projects/javaee-spec/downloads_.
> > > The changes are flagged with changebars in the relevant chapters.
> > >
> > > -Linda
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Antonio Goncalves
> > > Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
> > > _
> > > __Web site_ <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org/> | _Twitter_
> > > <http://twitter.com/agoncal>| _LinkedIn_
> > > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | _Pluralsight_
> > > <http://pluralsight.com/training/Authors/Details/antonio-goncalves>
|
> > > _Paris JUG_ <http://www.parisjug.org/> | _Devoxx France_
> > > <http://www.devoxx.fr/>
> >
> >
>