ben.cot...@rutgers.edu wrote :
| Regarding MC's enthusiasm for implementing JSR-330 ... have the strong
concerns expressed by significant JCP executive members
(http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=4944) been addressed satisfactorily?
Especially re: RedHat's explicit abstain vote on JSR-330's
We're just looking into implementing tight MC + WebBeans (JBoss' JSR-299 impl)
integration:
- http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/webbeans-dev/2009-July/001102.html
Kabir (MC team member working on MC's Kernel sub-project) is currently on
vacation,
but this is what we've discussed as his next
FYI, I'm looking into something similar or even better
with this MC+WB integration then what I've described in this article:
- http://java.dzone.com/articles/a-look-inside-jboss-microconta
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4246064#4246064
Reply to
I would also expect that MC will implement JSR-330 natively?
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=viewtopicp=4246065#4246065
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bbop=postingmode=replyp=4246065
Whilst the 299 spec requires that we provide 299 style injection into an Java
EE component, I would propose that we also provide it for MC aware bean (MC
beans, MBeans etc.). I would also like to support an 299 MCBean type of Bean
for JBoss, so that any MCBean can be injected into your 299
pete.m...@jboss.org wrote : I would also expect that MC will implement
JSR-330 natively?
Sure, that should be trivial.
We already have all those annotations in MC, so we'll just change them with
330's.
And the current impl can easily make the old one's back compatible if the user
needs it.
Thanks for these responses. Very informative.
Regarding MC's enthusiasm for implementing JSR-330 ... have the strong concerns
expressed by significant JCP executive members
(http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=4944) been addressed satisfactorily?
Especially re: RedHat's explicit abstain vote
