+1 for Gurkan, he has been so active on this project since the first days of it.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> One feature we've discussed was exactly the conversation scope. >> His opinion as far as I remember was: the spec says JSF but it doesn't say >> we aren't allowed to make it independent as long as we _also_ have >> conversations for JSF in place. The same applies to EJB. >> >> The 2nd suggestion was the injection of Java natives (int, long, ...) for >> producer methods via XML. The spec defines this only for field injection but >> not yet for initializers and producers. Pete said they will probably add >> this too in the future (but there is no time left to bring it into the spec >> yet for 1.0). >> >> So the underlying message was: make the whining guys happy (you know of whom >> I'm talking about) > > Not really. the non-jsf folks ? Or those that want DI on JavaSE layer ? > > -M > >> and then make the 1,0 spec final the sooner the better! >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> --- Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected]> schrieb am Do, 16.4.2009: >> >>> Von: Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected]> >>> Betreff: Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans -> Expert Group >>> An: [email protected] >>> Datum: Donnerstag, 16. April 2009, 13:07 >>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Mark >>> Struberg <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi! >>> > >>> > I've talked with Pete Muir at the JSFDays about the >>> JSR-299 spec a lot. >>> > >>> > Since he has taken over the lead from Gavin, >>> >>> he is the IMPL lead, at JBoss. And now the JBoss rep. on >>> JSF 2.0 >>> >>> > it should be possible to change an EG member also. And >>> also to add another person. >>> >>> Yes, that's correct. That was the reason why I brought this >>> up >>> >>> > >>> > The Spec for 1.0 is almost finished, there are a few >>> things which should be addressed but there is not enough >>> time to get it rdy for EE6! So this is basically a situation >>> where we have to get rid of all showstoppers but we >>> shouldn't add additional functionality at this point! >>> > >>> > I think the common ground of the JSR-299 Spec is solid >>> enough and fairly extendable. We have to implement what's in >>> the Spec but are completely free to add additional >>> functionality! I also talked with Pete about a few features >>> they will add, and they now also have SE support which is >>> not mentioned in the Spec. So I think it will not be a >>> problem to have new features added which are compatible in >>> RI and OWB _without_ having them written down in the >>> WebBeans-1.0 Spec but in a later one! >>> > >>> >>> sounds interesting. What features you were discussing? Can >>> you bring >>> it up here ? >>> >>> -Matthias >>> >>> > One possible thing that still may come is that some >>> functionality (like eventing or interceptors, cannot >>> remember which) may be removed from WebBeans and moved over >>> to EJB or another spec. >>> > >>> > So one who does this Job really needs to know OWB >>> insideout _plus_ a good amount of understanding of the whole >>> EE business >>> > >>> > I don't think you are deep enough into OWB yet, but >>> personally would highly appreciate to see you as a committer >>> on OWB in the future :) >>> > >>> > LieGrue, >>> > strub >>> > >>> > --- James Carman <[email protected]> >>> schrieb am Do, 16.4.2009: >>> > >>> >> Von: James Carman <[email protected]> >>> >> Betreff: Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans -> Expert >>> Group >>> >> An: [email protected] >>> >> Datum: Donnerstag, 16. April 2009, 12:35 >>> >> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:35 AM, >>> >> Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected]> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > I want to step back from the Expert Group. >>> Question is >>> >> now: >>> >> > Does one of you want to be on that EG ? This >>> community >>> >> would >>> >> > make most sense to have an active OWB >>> committer being >>> >> part >>> >> > of the spec/EG. >>> >> >>> >> I would be interested in joining, but I am not an >>> OWB >>> >> committer. I'm >>> >> very interested in making sure the spec stays >>> agnostic when >>> >> it comes >>> >> to the environment in which it runs. The >>> >> specification should make it >>> >> easy to use in Wicket, or Tapestry, or just plain >>> ole JSP >>> >> applications. >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matthias Wessendorf >>> >>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > -- ---- Thanks - Mohammad Nour - LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mnour ---- "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving" - Albert Einstein
