On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > +1 :) Actually, I think that 1.0 specification is merely finalized. But if it > needs more work in the future, I would like to work with James on the EG. It > is great to have different eyes to look at JSR-299. >
I pinged already the open-jcp list, at Apache, on HOW to do it. -M > Thanks > > Gurkan > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Mohammad Nour El-Din <nour.moham...@gmail.com> > To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 3:31:44 PM > Subject: Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans -> Expert Group > > It seems that we need two so why not you and Gurkan :) ? > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 2:30 PM, James Carman > <jcar...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: >> For the record, I'm +1 on Gurkan, too. I just offered myself up >> because I have interest in the topic and I do have quite a bit of >> experience in the dependency injection arena (and dynamic proxies). >> >> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din >> <nour.moham...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> +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 <mat...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> 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 <mat...@apache.org> schrieb am Do, 16.4.2009: >>>>> >>>>>> Von: Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org> >>>>>> Betreff: Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans -> Expert Group >>>>>> An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>>>> Datum: Donnerstag, 16. April 2009, 13:07 >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Mark >>>>>> Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> >>>>>> 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 <jcar...@carmanconsulting.com> >>>>>> schrieb am Do, 16.4.2009: >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> Von: James Carman <jcar...@carmanconsulting.com> >>>>>> >> Betreff: Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans -> Expert >>>>>> Group >>>>>> >> An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>>>> >> Datum: Donnerstag, 16. April 2009, 12:35 >>>>>> >> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:35 AM, >>>>>> >> Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org> >>>>>> >> 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 >>> >> > > > > -- > ---- > 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 > > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
