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 >
