On 19/08/2011 02:52, John D. Ament wrote:
>
> This would be making part of the JMS specification dependent on provision of a suitable CDI 1.1 implementation.
> We'd need to make clear which part of the spec had this dependency and which did not.
>
> We'd need a suitable CDI implementation before we could run the JMS 2.0 TCK tests.
>
>
> I'm not sure we're as much dependent vs strongly recommended here. I was thinking about the TCK tests as well. Most
> of my proposal doesn't have a strong dependence on CDI 1.1 (other than maybe using SE). The event model implicitly
> requires 1.1, due to forwarding of qualifiers.
When I wrote that this would make part of JMS dependent on CDI, I was thinking of Java SE, and the compliance tests
we'll need to provide.
Nigel