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.
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