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) 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 >
