Yeap agree with you. But, I am not sure how much functionality we will move into the impl. I think this will not so much. If lots of code has to be moved into the impl module, then we can create new owb-api module for separating API.
For the time being, I am not thinking about creating new OWB API. But we may consider it into the account after carefully reading all the specification to find all of the removed/added/changed contracts. Thanks; --Gurkan 2009/6/9 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > > Hmmm, I'm not really happy with having APIs in the impl if the are to be > used from outside. There are a few reasons: > > .) users cannot find out easily what APIs we intend to be used from > outside. So they will probably get their hands on everything - also highly > internalish stuff.which may break functionality if used unwisely. > > .) I don't like it if users use internal stuff because we cannot change our > internal mechanisms easily without the risk of breaking customer projects. > > .) What I had in mind: users have dependencies with scope 'compile' only > for the API parts, the webbeans-impl and plugins should only have scope > 'runtime' (or provided if we run in a J2EE container which has OWB on > board)! > > Does this make sense to you? I don't think the additional effort is so > high, because this is only about moving interface definitions from > webbeans-api to openwebbeans-api (or something). > > LieGrue, > strub > > --- Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> schrieb am Di, 9.6.2009: > > > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> > > Betreff: Re: Development Next Steps > > An: [email protected] > > Datum: Dienstag, 9. Juni 2009, 10:57 > > >>>Should we still stick to > > our approach to split non javaSE parts into > > plugins? > > Yes. But we have to change the *Resource* sections into the > > Bean that I did > > for JMS. In JMS I created a JMSBean that is responsible for > > injecting the > > JMS related artifacts. Currently JPA EntityManagers are > > injected directly > > without using any Beans. So we have to create Bean > > definitions for injecting > > for all resources. This will change the current JPA > > integration. > > > > >>>Also: did you already remove all parts from the > > 'official' API which have > > been dropped from the Spec like Observers? > > I am changing APIs to reflect the last draft. But if > > we need that some > > functionality must be remain in our implementation, I will > > place those APIs > > into the our implementation module. For example, lots of > > exceptions are > > thrown from the spec like DefinitionException, etc. I will > > place those into > > the our implementation module. > > > > >>>we should start a new 'owb-internal-api' > > module. > > I think this is not necessary. Because, placing those APIs > > into the > > implementation module. > > > > We have to push the implementation and lets create a > > community around it. > > > > All helps are welcome :) > > > > Thanks; > > > > --Gurkan > > > > > > 2009/6/9 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > Hi Gurkan! > > > > > > Should we still stick to our approach to split non > > javaSE parts into > > > plugins? I'd prefer it, but not sure if it is still > > possible. So since now > > > all 'heavy' parts are done, I could start working on > > getting the plugins > > > finished. > > > > > > Also: did you already remove all parts from the > > 'official' API which have > > > been dropped from the Spec like Observers? > > > Do we like to drop the functionality internally too? > > :( > > > If not (which I prefer), we should start a new > > 'owb-internal-api' module. > > > > > > LieGrue, > > > strub > > > > > > --- Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> > > schrieb am Mo, 8.6.2009: > > > > > > > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> > > > > Betreff: Development Next Steps > > > > An: [email protected] > > > > Datum: Montag, 8. Juni 2009, 18:53 > > > > Hi guys; > > > > > > > > As you already know, we have succesfully > > published our M2 > > > > version. Altough a spec changes a lot from the > > last draft > > > > version, I think we are on the good track. > > > > > > > > In the mean time I have sent June board > > report. In > > > > this report I stated one point, from report: > > > > > > > > > > > > NOT : Actually, last draft specification imposes > > on an > > > > implementations > > > > that it must be tightly integrated with a Java > > EE > > > > Container's internals > > > > , such that integration with an EJB 3.1 > > Container, Servlet > > > > Container, > > > > Managed Beans etc. So, we have to work closely on > > the > > > > respective Apache > > > > teams to push the implementation. > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT about the next items ? How could we > > proceed? > > > > > > > > Currently, I have been changing OWB API's for > > obeying to > > > > the current draft specification. Moreover, > > there are > > > > mainly the following points that have to be > > implemented as > > > > next > > > > > > > > 1* EJBs > > > > 2* Resources > > > > 3* Bean Provider SPI > > > > 4* Java Servlet, Managed Bean integration > > > > > > > > I will try to integrate OpenEJB with OWB. But > > this will be > > > > on a collapsed ear level (ejbs can be placed on > > the war > > > > deployment, ejb3.1 stuff). To real integration > > with EJBs, we > > > > have to work closely with OpenEJB teams. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks; > > > > > > > > --Gurkan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Gurkan Erdogdu > > http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com > > > > > > -- Gurkan Erdogdu http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
