It is. But I think OpenEJB is a bit different since it can be deployed in different environments, e.g. Tomcat. If we go #2 it would require a bit more configuration from the user to get OpenEJB running. It wouldn't be as easy as it is now. In Geronimo we control everything so #2 works fine for us.
Jarek On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:43 PM, David Jencks <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd prefer #2. Isn't this what we do in geronimo? > > thanks > david jencks > > On Aug 9, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I can't really find a reference to it in the EJB 3.1 spec, but I'm >> pretty sure EJB 3.1 needs to support the @Resource annotation from the >> Common Annotations 1.1 spec. One of the new things in 1.1 spec is the >> 'lookup' attribute on the Resource annotation. OpenEJB will need to >> recognize & support that attribute. Here's one problem: Java 6 >> provides Common Annotation 1.0 classes. So in order to support >> @Resource.lookup attribute we will need to 1) use reflection to get >> the 'lookup' attribute value OR 2) configure the compiler, surefire, >> etc. maven plugins to execute with appropriate java.endorsed.dirs >> settings so that right version of Common Annotation is used. >> >> I'm wondering which solution is a preferred solution. #1 seems much >> easier. Also, if we go with #2 then deploying OpenEJB in e.g. Tomcat >> might be a bit more difficult since the JVM will also need to be >> configured to use the right annotation spec. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Jarek > >
