I agree with Kevan opinion. Much of the EJB stuff like transaction handling and scheduling could be easily done in JCDI. Indeed this aspects are often part of "simple" web application, that are deployed in a single web archive.
The more sophisticated stuff like distribution and synchronization of transactions, MOM, management, deployment and other infrastructural services would better fit in the enterprise environment. br, Sven 2009/11/11 Joseph Bergmark <[email protected]> > Personally I would prefer OpenWebBeans continue to be independent of the > EJB > container it runs in concert with. Right now it seems the openwebbeans-ejb > part is pluggable and could potentially be replaced when running in other > environments. If OWB becomes a sub-project of OpenEJB, or in the long term > goal part of OpenEJB, it seems that could be lost. > > I do agree that from a technology standpoint there is a lot of similarity > and we may be moving towards some new shared component model. > > Sincerely, > > Joe > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 1:02 PM, David Blevins <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > I wonder what the group would think about potentially graduating into > > OpenEJB. Perhaps as a subproject for this spec cycle, but with the > longer > > term goal of becoming part of the same codebase. > > > > Vision-wise, I'd like to offer @TransactionManagement, > > @ConcurrencyManagement, @Asynchronous, @Schedule, and various other "EJB" > > feature sets to "WebBeans". As well I'd like to offer Decorators and > more > > to "EJB". I admit that I see a large number of JDCI features as next > > generation EJB and next generation DI. The only difference between > > javax.ejb and javax.enterprise is that "javabean" was removed :) I'd > really > > like to offer the industry some consistency and unity where the JCP has > > failed to provide it. > > > > In terms of graduation, it really depends on where everyone's head is at > in > > terms of implementation/project independence over the long haul. Very > > interested in thoughts there. > > > > > > -David > > > > > > On Nov 11, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: > > > > It's been a while since the community has discussed graduation. What are > >> your current thoughts? > >> > >> I've mentored about all that I can mentor... ; -) > >> > >> From the last time I kicked off the discussion: > >> > >> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:00 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: > >> > >> IMO, this community displays nearly all of the characteristics that I > >>> would look for from a successful Incubator project: you've successfully > >>> created several releases while operating in a clear, open, and > welcoming > >>> manner. All of this while facing some significant challenges as the JSR > 299 > >>> spec has been an ever shifting target. > >>> > >>> I'd like to see us moving towards graduation. To start things off, is > the > >>> community interested in becoming a top-level project? Or would you > rather > >>> graduate as a sub-project of an existing TLP? > >>> > >> > >> I think we're ready. Graduation is going to take a concerted effort by > the > >> community. I'm certainly willing to help, but the community is going to > need > >> to help drive this. > >> > >> --kevan > >> > >> > > >
