Re: OpenWebBeans Blog
cool! On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi; OpenWebBeans blog section is created ! http://blogs.apache.org/owb/ Gurkan -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans - Expert Group
Hi Matthias; Is it possible to change the EG representation after forming the EG? If it is possible, and you would like to go on this way, I could take the responsibility, if there will no problem. What is the road map for this changing stuffs? WDYT guys? Thanks; 2009/4/16 Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org Hi, I am currently representing the ASF on the above JSR. However, I never really did much. Also I never really committed anything to this podling. I just try to help the community growing whenever I have some free time. 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. Thanks! Matthias -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Gurkan Erdogdu http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans - Expert Group
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.
Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans - Expert Group
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu cgurkanerdo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Matthias; Is it possible to change the EG representation after forming the EG? If it yes, that should be possible. is possible, and you would like to go on this way, I could take the responsibility, if there will no problem. +1 That would be a good fit, IMO. If there is another one, let's try to add the second person as well. History: James and I were (long time ago) interested in the 299 EG. However, he got sick of it before me :-) So, now it is only me. (- pretty inactive) What is the road map for this changing stuffs? Dunno. Once we have a clear opinion on who (besides Gurkan) is interested in joining the EG, I'll figure it out. -Matthias WDYT guys? Thanks; 2009/4/16 Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org Hi, I am currently representing the ASF on the above JSR. However, I never really did much. Also I never really committed anything to this podling. I just try to help the community growing whenever I have some free time. 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. Thanks! Matthias -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Gurkan Erdogdu http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans - Expert Group
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, it should be possible to change an EG member also. And also to add another person. 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! 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.
Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans - Expert Group
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) 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
Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans - Expert Group
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
Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans - Expert Group
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din nour.moham...@gmail.com wrote: It seems that we need two so why not you and Gurkan :) ? +1 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
Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans - Expert Group
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din nour.moham...@gmail.com wrote: It seems that we need two so why not you and Gurkan :) ? Sorry, I followed this thread partly on my phone, so it was somewhat tough to follow I guess. Do we need two?
Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans - Expert Group
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: Does not hurt. Originally we were two as well. Both from Shale (James and I) Well, it wouldn't hurt to have someone else on there that isn't a JSFer. From what I understand Crazy Bob is interested in allowing the use of JSR-299 in Java SE environments (meaning anywhere I guess) as well.
Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans - Expert Group
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: to be honest, I never understood, why the DI layer needs to be part of an JEE tied spec... There should be a flexible/extensible DI layer at SE. Extensions for that could be added to JEE... +1000! :) I really don't understand why the specs try to be so application server heavy (then again, most of the expert groups have folks like IBM on them, who sell application servers). It doesn't seem that tough to do most of these things outside the realm of one of these fat servers. It would be great if these specifications could just say as long as I have these particular services available to me, I can run and then we just come up with a nice pluggable services platform (kind of like how Geronimo is set up I guess).
Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans - Expert Group
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' ... Only my personal thoughts btw. 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, 15:01 On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: Does not hurt. Originally we were two as well. Both from Shale (James and I) Well, it wouldn't hurt to have someone else on there that isn't a JSFer. From what I understand Crazy Bob is interested in allowing the use of JSR-299 in Java SE environments (meaning anywhere I guess) as well.
Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans - Expert Group
should go under javax.se sorry ment javax.ee ! --- Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de schrieb am Do, 16.4.2009: Von: Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de Betreff: Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans - Expert Group An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Datum: Donnerstag, 16. April 2009, 18:08 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' ... Only my personal thoughts btw. 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, 15:01 On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote: Does not hurt. Originally we were two as well. Both from Shale (James and I) Well, it wouldn't hurt to have someone else on there that isn't a JSFer. From what I understand Crazy Bob is interested in allowing the use of JSR-299 in Java SE environments (meaning anywhere I guess) as well.
Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans - Expert Group
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)
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: JSR 299 / WebBeans - Expert Group
Pete and I also talked with Jürgen Höller from Spring at the JSFDays. If I remember this correctly Jürgen said that they are not yet implementing JSR-299 but follow it's progress closely. Even in future versions (earliest 3.1) they will probably not implement the full Spec but do like they did with JSR-250 Common Annotations. I think Spring has lot more to offer then simple IOC. At the end of the day it has nothing to do with Spring vs Guice vs WebBeans but what counts is that 1 engineer doesn't have to take care about such simple things anymore! I also used spring-2.5 at Verisign but I never used @Autowire but only @Resource because I (and a lot of other VS principals) don't like it if my code is tied to one single 'vendor'. If you look at JSR-250 e.g. @Resource is defined to 'take blablub from _JNDI_! so the whole common annotations are heavily JNDI based. But who does this JNDI-only in praxis? Nobody! So the SE thingy is a de-facto standard for JSR-150 as probably will be for JSR-299. just my (highly personal) .02 LieGrue, strub --- Arash Rajaeeyan arash.rajaee...@gmail.com schrieb am Do, 16.4.2009: Von: Arash Rajaeeyan arash.rajaee...@gmail.com Betreff: Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans - Expert Group An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org Datum: Donnerstag, 16. April 2009, 20:04 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
