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
>