-
1. Re: MC, JSR-299 and notion of
alesj Jul 26, 2009 4:48 PM (in response to ben.cotton2)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 task when he comes back.
But you're more than welcome to help.
If you have any ideas simply post them on our MC dev forum:
- http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewforum&f=204
Kabir and I have a few ideas, whereas Pete, as you can see, has some demands. :-)
But like I said, I'm very opened to suggestions. -
2. Re: MC, JSR-299 and notion of
alesj Jul 26, 2009 4:54 PM (in response to ben.cotton2)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 -
3. Re: MC, JSR-299 and notion of
pmuir Jul 26, 2009 5:11 PM (in response to ben.cotton2)I would also expect that MC will implement JSR-330 natively?
-
4. Re: MC, JSR-299 and notion of
pmuir Jul 26, 2009 5:15 PM (in response to ben.cotton2)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 beans.
-
5. Re: MC, JSR-299 and notion of
alesj Jul 26, 2009 5:17 PM (in response to ben.cotton2)"pete.muir@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. -
6. Re: MC, JSR-299 and notion of
ben.cotton2 Jul 26, 2009 7:42 PM (in response to ben.cotton2)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 on JSR-330's formation? -
7. Re: MC, JSR-299 and notion of
alesj Jul 27, 2009 3:57 AM (in response to ben.cotton2)"ben.cotton@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 formation?
This is "politics", something I don't care and do in MC. ;-)
I do understand our stand, but otoh if 330 goes through,
I think there should be no doubt that we/MC should support it, same goes for WebBeans.