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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
16 matches
Mail list logo