Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans - Expert Group
I am also very interested to have a full SE version of open web beans.any one here has checked Spring RCP ? Spring has a full stack competing with Java EE stack. they have also a solution for RCP and Fat Clients, an SE version of JSR 299 can attract lots of Spring developers, the EE dependent one will not be much interesting to them. On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 9:13 AM, James Carman jcar...@carmanconsulting.comwrote: On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote: Bob originally was interested in having IOC for SE also. But from what I've seen so far, he is imho one of those who requests that all the annotations should go under javax.se. To me this sounds more like 'oh this thing can't beat guice, so it should be for EJB only which we do not use anyway' ... So, why write a spec that's loosely based on Guice (a lot of concepts look similar; along with Seam) when it can't be used in place of it? That seems silly. We should strive for the best all-around IoC paradigm for Java, regardless of where it's running. It should have hooks for different scopes (similar to Guice and Spring and HiveMind, etc) -- Arash Rajaeeyan
Re: @Resource handling
can we assume ordinary java objects also have a place on JNDI tree? just as EJB 3.1 components names have become standard? that's some thing we can propose to be added web-beans (Java Dependency Injection) standard. On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.orgwrote: On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote: Hi! The (EJB centric) Spec of @Resource says that the resource will always be looked up via JNDI [1]. I guess mainly because the whole J2EE stuff is really JNDI centric. Otoh in environments where no or only a read-only JNDI context is available, do we like to allow @Resouce also? I think, that I'd go for it -M I know this feature from Spring and I must say I love it. You can simply write a Bean and inject it via @Resource even without JNDI, So for Spring @Resource is more or less an alias for @Autowired (which is ~ our @Current) I'm not really sure how to interpret the section 5.12.1 of the spec. LieGrue, strub [1] http://java.sun.com/javaee/5/docs/api/javax/annotation/Resource.html -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Arash Rajaeeyan
Re: @Resource handling
Hi Mark, correct me if I am wrong. as 2009-01-22 the new name for web-beans is Java Contexts and Dependency Injection JNDI is a mechanism for naming and discovery of Java Objects in a distributed system. it lets components (complex heavy objects) to be discovered with a mechanism other than their Java Class name or Java Object pointer. since lots of systems are not distributed and run on single JVM, that distributed java objects parts makes no sense. but: in DI frameworks like Seam and Spring a component can be given an alias name other than it's class name. now if a developer wants to move from SE to EE (for example he may use SE for unit test, and EE for deployment, or current project size may not justify EE environment) changing the names may become painful if they need to be changed. if some naming mechanism compatible with EJB 3.1 JNDI names are used, it may help this change. putting objects in JNDI directory is not neccessary, but a a place for them on JNDI tree, (when program is deployed in EE) may be very usefull. Regards Arash Rajaeeyan On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote: Hi Arash! Currently the spec imho only says that the Manager has to be exposed via JNDI. I personally don't see the benefit if we add all things to JNDI but I'm not a big EJB wizard. Why do you like to have it? Can you give us a sample where it would be an advantage? txs and LieGrue, strub --- Arash Rajaeeyan arash.rajaee...@gmail.com schrieb am Fr, 13.3.2009: Von: Arash Rajaeeyan arash.rajaee...@gmail.com Betreff: Re: @Resource handling An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Datum: Freitag, 13. März 2009, 10:03 can we assume ordinary java objects also have a place on JNDI tree? just as EJB 3.1 components names have become standard? that's some thing we can propose to be added web-beans (Java Dependency Injection) standard. On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.orgwrote: On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote: Hi! The (EJB centric) Spec of @Resource says that the resource will always be looked up via JNDI [1]. I guess mainly because the whole J2EE stuff is really JNDI centric. Otoh in environments where no or only a read-only JNDI context is available, do we like to allow @Resouce also? I think, that I'd go for it -M I know this feature from Spring and I must say I love it. You can simply write a Bean and inject it via @Resource even without JNDI, So for Spring @Resource is more or less an alias for @Autowired (which is ~ our @Current) I'm not really sure how to interpret the section 5.12.1 of the spec. LieGrue, strub [1] http://java.sun.com/javaee/5/docs/api/javax/annotation/Resource.html -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Arash Rajaeeyan -- Arash Rajaeeyan
Re: [jira] Created: (OWB-62) Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml
nice idea mark we can also discuss this in specification list, this is the benefit of parallel implementation of spec in Apache, they may not notice (or don't care about!) some existing problems, On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote: But Aresh is right. So as we have to fulfil the spec (which really requires beans.xml now) and also like to be applicable for a lot of situations, we may add a kind of OpenWebBeansConfiguration class which reads this name (and maybe a few other settings in the future) form an openwebbeans.properties from the classpath. LieGrue, strub --- Gurkan Erdogdu gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com schrieb am Sa, 24.1.2009: Von: Gurkan Erdogdu gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com Betreff: Re: [jira] Created: (OWB-62) Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Datum: Samstag, 24. Januar 2009, 13:56 Hi Arash; We will just apply the specification requirements. Thanks; /Gurkan From: Arash Rajaeeyan arash.rajaee...@gmail.com To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 9:28:03 PM Subject: Re: [jira] Created: (OWB-62) Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml Doesn't this make conflict with Spring bean.xml ? it looks like it is in Spring roadmap to become a light weight EJB 3.1 container, it may be possible in future that both web-beans and spring containers are allowed together. On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Mark Struberg (JIRA) j...@apache.orgwrote: Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml --- Key: OWB-62 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-62 Project: OpenWebBeans Issue Type: Bug Reporter: Mark Struberg Assignee: Gurkan Erdogdu The term WebBeans has completely removed from the final PR spec and also the xml config files name has changed. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. -- Arash Rajaeeyan -- Arash Rajaeeyan
Re: [jira] Created: (OWB-62) Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml
Doesn't this make conflict with Spring bean.xml ? it looks like it is in Spring roadmap to become a light weight EJB 3.1 container, it may be possible in future that both web-beans and spring containers are allowed together. On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Mark Struberg (JIRA) j...@apache.orgwrote: Refactor web-beans.xml to beans.xml --- Key: OWB-62 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-62 Project: OpenWebBeans Issue Type: Bug Reporter: Mark Struberg Assignee: Gurkan Erdogdu The term WebBeans has completely removed from the final PR spec and also the xml config files name has changed. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. -- Arash Rajaeeyan
