myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: FYI: javax.inject* standard ...
Date Wed, 06 May 2009 08:25:08 GMT

Simon,

for OpenWebBeans there is also a functional ConversationScope implementation for Wicket already.

And yes, JPA, JSF, JMS are already fully plugable, EJB is currently in progress, maybe even
the ServletContainer dependency may be plugable.

So with release M3, OWB should finally be JDK only.

I think this discussed proposal is correct on the SE argument but otherwise lacks a lot of
important information like e.g. configuration, etc

LieGrue,
strub

--- Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com> schrieb am Di, 5.5.2009:

> Von: Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com>
> Betreff: Re: FYI: javax.inject* standard ...
> An: "MyFaces Development" <dev@myfaces.apache.org>
> Datum: Dienstag, 5. Mai 2009, 20:05
> I agree, it should have been more
> abstract to start with, and not depend on JSF for
> conversation scope either. Actually, the more I think about
> it, the more I think that it should have been JSF extending
> 299 with conversation scope through WebBeans custom scope
> feature and it should have been the same for EJB 3.
> Currently it seems to me that the dependency links with
> JSR-299 are all in the opposite direction that they should
> have been.
> 
> 
> ~ Simon
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:02 PM,
> Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> That's true, but I think most JSR-299 impl can run
> outside JEE environment already. Many specs started in EE
> and ended in SE 1 or 2 version of the SDK
> later.
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org>
> wrote:
> 
> the big failure of the JSR 299 is
> that it just lives in JavaEE land.
> 
> 
> 
> Best would have been to introduce a flexible DI API in SE
> land.
> 
> This could be extended in all the different profiles. So,
> 299 could
> 
> have just been a *consumer* of that flexible DI in order to
> extend
> 
> it and add the things that are needed for EJB and all the
> other EE things.
> 
> 
> 
> just my $0.02
> 
> 
> 
> -M
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Weird, it certainly overlaps BIG time, most of what
> their spec seem to have
> 
> > is already in JSR-299 too... Maybe I'm missing
> something...
> 
> >
> 
> > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Matthias Wessendorf
> <matzew@apache.org>
> 
> > wrote:
> 
> >>
> 
> >> FYI
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> 
> >> From: Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org>
> 
> >> Date: Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:34 PM
> 
> >> Subject: FYI: javax.inject* standard ...
> 
> >> To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> 
> >> Cc: Pete Muir <pmuir@redhat.com>
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> FYI:
> 
> >> http://google-code-updates.blogspot.com/2009/05/javaxinjectinject.html
> 
> >>
> 
> >> what does this mean to JSR 299 ?
> 


      

Mime
View raw message