It's a point I made before. If we leave things be on this for JMS 2, it
gives projects/products like Seam 3 JMS and Resin room to evolve further
to bring about proven/mature solutions that real-world customers use
successfully in significant numbers. Currently, Seam 3 JMS is still in
beta and Resin has a design and no implementation yet. I think that's
the real underlying problem we have rather than any fundamental
usability issue with what we need to do.
On 10/21/2011 7:48 AM, Nigel Deakin wrote:
> On 21/10/2011 03:12, Reza Rahman wrote:
>> Not to put too negative of a spin on this, but I don't think it would
>> be terrible for non-standard solutions in this problem space to
>> evolve a bit more.
>
> There are rather too many negatives in that sentence for me to
> understand what you mean. Can you say a bit more?
>
> Nigel
>
>>
>> That being said, we should still give this an honest try I think...
>>
>> On 10/19/2011 7:24 AM, Nigel Deakin wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> It's time for an update on progress on proposals to allow the
>>> injection of JMS objects into Java EE and Java SE applications.
>>>
>>> The last update you had from me on his subject was on 7th September,
>>> when I circulated minutes from a call I had with EG members Reza
>>> (Rahman) and John (Ament) to discuss John's AtInject proposals which
>>> were circulated earlier.
>>>
>>> Since then Reza, John and I have had one or two further calls and
>>> extensive email correspondence. I wrote a new document, based on the
>>> ideas in John's, which attempted to define a set of annotations
>>> which could be used to inject JMS objects into applications. An
>>> updated version of this document is attached to this message. It
>>> lists a fairly complete set of possible annotations to inject almost
>>> all JMS objects, but it leaves a number of important issues
>>> unresolved, and until we can resolve these issues this document is
>>> simply a statement of desire rather than a realistic practical
>>> proposal.
>>>
>>> The unresolved issues are listed in the document, but in summary,
>>> the main ones are
>>> * The relationship between injected objects
>>> * Avoiding repetition on annotations
>>> * Injected objects cannot be local variables
>>> * Scope of injected variables
>>> * Java SE support
>>>
>>> It is important to appreciate that if we can't resolve these issues
>>> then we will probably need to abandon the document and start again.
>>>
>>> When I was at JavaOne earlier this month Reza and I had a meeting
>>> with Pete Muir, spec lead for CDI (Contexts and Dependency
>>> Injection). He offered to work with us to see whether it would be
>>> possible to achieve what we wanted in a reasonably standard manner
>>> using CDI - either the existing version or a future version.
>>>
>>> Since it's been a few weeks since I gave the full expert group (and
>>> user list) an update on this, please do feel free to ask questions
>>> about the attached document, make comments, or raise issues. Also,
>>> if you think you have ideas on how to resolve the unresolved issues
>>> please say so!
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Nigel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG -www.avg.com
>>> Version: 2012.0.1831 / Virus Database: 2092/4562 - Release Date: 10/19/11
>>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2012.0.1831 / Virus Database: 2092/4565 - Release Date: 10/21/11
>