geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim McConnell <>
Subject Re: Annotation processing
Date Fri, 05 Jan 2007 03:48:06 GMT
Hi David, sorry if I wasn't sufficiently clear. I not suggesting that we redo anything that's

already been done for annotations in the other projects (e.g., openejb, openjpa, cfx, axis,
I'm really just suggesting that there is some amount of work remaining in Geronimo related
deployment and annotations (e.g., JSR-88, JSR-77, JSR-250, etc.) and since I've volunteered
to be 
responsible for JSR-88, I thought it might be more efficient to have as many of these changes
possible done as part of the JSR-88 implementation. I "believe" this is a valid assumption
JSR-77. I'm not as certain about any of the other JSR's though.


David Blevins wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
>> Hi David, thanks for kicking off this discussion and I agree with most 
>> of your steps
>> below. However, since it seems that "annotations" are now pervasive in 
>> many of the JSR
>> specifications (i.e., JSRs 77, 88, 175, 181, 220, 250 and probably 
>> even more that I
>> personally haven't uncovered) it seems like a concise set of 
>> responsibilities for all these
>> annotation-specific JSRs might mitigate some confusion
>> and hopefully prevent overlap and/or conflicts (i.e., who is going to 
>> do what).
>> So for example, I'm responsible for the Geronimo JEE5 Deployment JSR 
>> (88) and I'm making these three
>> assumptions below:
>> 1 -- The current Geronimo JSR-88 implementation will be enhanced (by 
>> me) to provide a
>> "metadata-complete" XML deployment descriptor, which is essentially 
>> what you've described
>> below in steps 1-3.
>> 2 -- The work associated with assumption #1 should encompass as many 
>> of the impacted JSRs as
>> possible on the Geronimo side from a deployment perspective to 
>> minimize the number of
>> folks making similar changes to the Geronimo builders/deployers. Thus, 
>> these JSRs should be
>> encompassed by the JSR-88 implementation for Geronimo:
>>     -- JSR 77     (JEE5 management--this JSR in particular has already 
>> been mentioned as a
>> candidate by Paul and Chris and I agree with them)
>>     -- JSR 88    (Deployment)
>>     -- JSR 175     (Java annotations)
>>     -- JSR 181    (Web Services metadata)
>>     -- JSR 250     (Common annotations)
>> 3 -- Your step number 4 below (add objects to inject resources) feels 
>> like a duplicate of
>> your step 3 (deploy from the modified xml descriptor...) but again 
>> will/should be
>> implemented under the auspices of  JSR-88.
>> So, if that seems reasonable then I would still have a couple questions:
>> 1 -- Since JSR 220 (EJB) is impacted by annotations, will there be a 
>> separate and distinct
>> deployment implementation for annotations in OpenEJB ?? I'm guessing 
>> yes based on the
>> OPENEJB-216 JIRA and all its subtasks but just would again like some 
>> validation so as to
>> better understand the implications if any from a Geronimo 
>> responsibility perspective.
>> 2 -- Are there any other JSRs impacted by annotations for JEE5 
>> compliance ??
> Well, that's certainly an interesting idea.  There are 149 annotations 
> in all of Java EE 5 [1] and only 10 of them are generic JSR 250 
> annotations -- and most specs don't use those.  Are you sure 
> consolidating all of them into one task is a good idea?  You'd be 
> looking at months of work just to catch up to where most projects 
> already are.
> If this is truly just about getting meta-data complete descriptors, 
> there's really no work for ejbs anyway as there'll be a 
> metadata-complete ejb-jar.xml in the GBeans we produce from deployment 
> which is the way the current integration satisfies the JSR-88 requirement.
> Thoughts?
> -David
> [1]  Made a list for you 

Tim McConnell

View raw message