Check this out Jacek and Karan http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=303
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Karan Malhi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Deal, > > As an afterthought, I realized its not required. > Actually, this idea stemmed from a thought I had about project-specific > validations.For example, one of the scenarios could be that the project I am > working on does not use stateful session beans, can I ask openejb to warn me > if I did accidentally use the Stateful annotation. I know that these kind of > validations are outside the scope of OpenEJB , and this use-case is more > suited for code analysis tools, but this is where I started thinking about a > separate module which could be plugged in. If we do want to support > project-specific validation, then Mohammad's idea could be a good starting > point (we still may not need commons validation as our own validation > framework is pretty good). > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 4:58 AM, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Karan Malhi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > Was just trying things out with validation. The more I abuse OpenEJB > > > deploy(which is actually using validation the right way if I want to > > learn > > > EJB :)) , the more I end up using validation. There are so many things > > which > > > could be done in validation itself. For example, a little framework > > could be > > > created to give a more feature rich help (interactive help etc..) . > > > > Isn't openejb small enough to be able to handle this scenario well? > > Whenever a ejb provider (developer) breaks anything, openejb tells > > what it is and after a change everything is run again. The startup > > time of openejb would definitely be improved, but I don't think that's > > what you meant. > > > > > So, I was thinking that could > > > validation be its own separate module where we could release its jars > > > separately, which could simply be dropped in into an existing OpenEJB > > > install? > > > > I disagree. If we're still uncertain whether it should be a separate > > module or not, it means it is not ready yet to become a separate > > module. I'm sure one day when the validation part becomes > > feature-richer you'll know it's time to plug it out. Let's give it a > > bit more time until it's ready. Deal? > > > > Jacek > > > > -- > > Jacek Laskowski > > http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl <http://www.jaceklaskowski.pl/> > > > > > > -- > Karan Singh Malhi > -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour
