> (read the EG list. Funny to read, these days...) Yes, they _have_to_ take care about EJB because WebBeans (or whatever they finally may call it) also has to work in the most complex environment.
But that should not hinder us from designing OpenWebBeans modulary. This would make OpenWebBeans much more versatile. Still more than 70% of the projects I know do NOT use EJB at all. And this are not only small projects. Sometimes it's easier to scale out (not scale up, but out (split of the concerns each server does)!) if you only have a thin layer which does exactly what you like. LieGrue, strub --- Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected]> schrieb am So, 11.1.2009: > Von: Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected]> > Betreff: Re: WebBeans 'light' > An: [email protected] > Datum: Sonntag, 11. Januar 2009, 3:38 > I like beeing not heavyweight, even if the "light" > term isn't > (eventually) not making it to the final spec. > (read the EG list. Funny to read, these days...) > > -M > > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Mark Struberg > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I know the WebBeans spec is demanding either a full > EJB server or at least an EJB light container. > > > > But if someone (like me) likes to NOT use EJB at all, > and also no JMS, then WebBeans might still be very > interesting in combination with a small standalone servlet > engine like tomcat or jetty + JSF for the frontend + JPA for > ORM. > > > > What about this combination? Do we like to modularize > OpenWebBeans in a way that a scaled down approach would work > also? > > > > I'm not sure if this is possible without > infringing the spec or if this is implementable at all. > WDYT? > > > > LieGrü, > > strub > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
