Dhanji R. Prasanna wrote:
>
>
> On 7/13/07, *Marc Hadley* <Marc.Hadley_at_sun.com
> <mailto:Marc.Hadley_at_sun.com>> wrote:
>
> On Jul 11, 2007, at 6:37 PM, Dhanji R. Prasanna wrote:
>
> >
> > This is something I brought up very early on but would tend to
> > discourage as we cannot provide a coherent implementation of
> > @Resource without confusing the hell out of developers working in
> > SE environments or (future) EE profiles that are not of the
> > "kitchen sink" ilk.
> > It may be worthwhile to support it as an "also possible" in certain
> > EE profiles (enabled with jndi registries).
> >
> I note that @Resource is included in SE 6, is your concern that
> @Resource will only work with certain types in certain contexts/
> profiles ? If so I think we can counter that problem by being very
> clear about what is guaranteed to work where.
>
>
> Yea this is essentially it. Right now any servlet container without jndi
> cannot do justice to @Resource.
Right.
If we want an SE profile (or a non EE profile) the RI might have to
supply some sort of default initial context factory to bootstrap @Resource.
This is all rather frustrating because I doubt that anyone would use
JNDI to access the things we would define as injectable using @Resource.
Paul.
--
| ? + ? = To question
----------------\
Paul Sandoz
x38109
+33-4-76188109