You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jcp-open@apache.org by David Blevins <da...@visi.com> on 2007/05/25 20:53:05 UTC
EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Hey all. I'd like to participate in EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6 as an Apache
rep on those specs. Shooting a note out here for discussion.
I was fortunate enough to participate in EJB 3.0 as an independent,
but no longer have independent status. My motivation for continued
participation in the EJB spec is obvious (OpenEJB) and these days
about half of what one things of in EJB is actually defined by the
JavaEE6 spec (injection, naming, much of the xml schema, packaging,
etc).
-David
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On May 29, 2007, at 1:13 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 5/29/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>> On May 27, 2007, at 3:43 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>> > On 5/25/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> > does someone stop being an expert when they change their employer?
>>
>> I don't know if it's that cut and dry. When I started on EJB 3.0
>> (220) for example, I was Independent. Then I joined Gluecode and
>> eventually Gluecode as bought by IBM. I never got "kicked off" as a
>> 220 Expert during those transitions, but I think that was more an act
>> of them "letting it slide" than anything else. JSR 220 is over now
>> and I wouldn't expect to be accepted for any new JSRs as an
>> Independent.
>
> why not?
>
> you are an expert
>
> i may be a little naive but i hope that a specification lead who wants
> to create the best possible specification would want access to the
> best experts possible regardless of employer. the JCP process is
> stacked in favour of the specification lead. they control the process.
> there is no reason why they need to stack the expert panel with their
> supporters. any specification lead who plays politics with expert
> nominations deserves ridicule.
Just to be clear, it's *my* thinking that lead me to ask about the
Apache seat -- no politics going on. Seemed natural given my
involvement in Apache OpenEJB and Apache Geronimo.
-David
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> if that one company wants to see the spec go a direction
> favorable to their product line, for example. (see "EJB - session bean /
> entity bean")
Surely "oracle beans" and "IBM beans" as rumour has it they were once
known as during the EJB1 spec days
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by peter royal <pr...@apache.org>.
On May 29, 2007, at 4:03 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> because the spec lead can do whatever the heck she or he wants to
> (see "NIO").
care to drop a few more words on this so i can try and dredge up some
info in google?:)
-pete
--
proyal@apache.org - http://fotap.org/~osi
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On May 29, 2007, at 4:13 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 5/29/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>> On May 27, 2007, at 3:43 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>> > On 5/25/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> > does someone stop being an expert when they change their employer?
>>
>> I don't know if it's that cut and dry. When I started on EJB 3.0
>> (220) for example, I was Independent. Then I joined Gluecode and
>> eventually Gluecode as bought by IBM. I never got "kicked off" as a
>> 220 Expert during those transitions, but I think that was more an act
>> of them "letting it slide" than anything else. JSR 220 is over now
>> and I wouldn't expect to be accepted for any new JSRs as an
>> Independent.
>
> why not?
>
> you are an expert
>
> i may be a little naive but i hope that a specification lead who wants
> to create the best possible specification would want access to the
> best experts possible regardless of employer.
Well, maybe - the idea is that one organization, say "IBM" (which
happens to be David's employer), has a whole raft of experts which
should work through the human that represents IBM. IBM is the member
of the expert group, not the employees.
> the JCP process is
> stacked in favour of the specification lead. they control the process.
> there is no reason why they need to stack the expert panel with their
> supporters. any specification lead who plays politics with expert
> nominations deserves ridicule.
The problem is that the spec process is full of politics. It's not
about a spec lead stacking w/ their supporters - there's actually no
reason to do that, because the spec lead can do whatever the heck she
or he wants to (see "NIO"). What a spec lead has to consider is the
competing commercial interests of the experts (see "EJB"). That's
why a whole raft of experts that happen to work for the same company
can be problematic, if that one company wants to see the spec go a
direction favorable to their product line, for example. (see "EJB -
session bean / entity bean")
geir
>
> - robert
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 5/29/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 2007, at 3:43 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > On 5/25/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > does someone stop being an expert when they change their employer?
>
> I don't know if it's that cut and dry. When I started on EJB 3.0
> (220) for example, I was Independent. Then I joined Gluecode and
> eventually Gluecode as bought by IBM. I never got "kicked off" as a
> 220 Expert during those transitions, but I think that was more an act
> of them "letting it slide" than anything else. JSR 220 is over now
> and I wouldn't expect to be accepted for any new JSRs as an Independent.
why not?
you are an expert
i may be a little naive but i hope that a specification lead who wants
to create the best possible specification would want access to the
best experts possible regardless of employer. the JCP process is
stacked in favour of the specification lead. they control the process.
there is no reason why they need to stack the expert panel with their
supporters. any specification lead who plays politics with expert
nominations deserves ridicule.
- robert
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On May 27, 2007, at 3:43 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 5/25/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>> Hey all. I'd like to participate in EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6 as an Apache
>> rep on those specs. Shooting a note out here for discussion.
>>
>> I was fortunate enough to participate in EJB 3.0 as an independent,
>> but no longer have independent status.
>
> is this to do with a change in employment?
Right.
> does someone stop being an expert when they change their employer?
I don't know if it's that cut and dry. When I started on EJB 3.0
(220) for example, I was Independent. Then I joined Gluecode and
eventually Gluecode as bought by IBM. I never got "kicked off" as a
220 Expert during those transitions, but I think that was more an act
of them "letting it slide" than anything else. JSR 220 is over now
and I wouldn't expect to be accepted for any new JSRs as an Independent.
-David
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 5/25/07, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> Hey all. I'd like to participate in EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6 as an Apache
> rep on those specs. Shooting a note out here for discussion.
>
> I was fortunate enough to participate in EJB 3.0 as an independent,
> but no longer have independent status.
is this to do with a change in employment?
does someone stop being an expert when they change their employer?
- robert
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Yes I have been engaged in discussions with Bill and have been asked to
be on the JSR-313 spot as the Apache rep (prolly 'cause I was the Apache
rep for JSR-244 - thanks Geir).
It is something I would like to continue to do (if that's ok with you
all) and I would be pleased and honored to share the spot with David if
Bill says its ok...I can ask him if you like.
As Geir pointed out though...JSR-313 has been put on hold until further
notice...
Jeff
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> note that
> Jeff Genender also wishes to participate, at least on JavaEE6 IIRC. You
> two should sync up on this (here)
>
> geir
>
> On May 25, 2007, at 2:53 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> Hey all. I'd like to participate in EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6 as an Apache
>> rep on those specs. Shooting a note out here for discussion.
>>
>> I was fortunate enough to participate in EJB 3.0 as an independent,
>> but no longer have independent status. My motivation for continued
>> participation in the EJB spec is obvious (OpenEJB) and these days
>> about half of what one things of in EJB is actually defined by the
>> JavaEE6 spec (injection, naming, much of the xml schema, packaging, etc).
>>
>> -David
>
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On May 28, 2007, at 3:19 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 5/28/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On May 28, 2007, at 3:12 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>>
>> > On 5/28/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >> note that Jeff Genender also wishes to participate, at least on
>> >> JavaEE6 IIRC. You two should sync up on this (here)
>> >
>> > does the JCP has an issue with multiple expert having
>> connections to a
>> > single organization?
>>
>> No - it's left up to the spec lead.
>
> what is the difference (in JCP terms) between being a representative
> for apache and an expert?
Nothing. If you are "representing Apace in the Expert Group" you are
an "expert".
>
> is there any advantage for an expert who is an apache committer
> representing apache rather than being an independent?
Not really, other than maybe having the "heft" of an organization
behind you. OTOH, being an independent means you aren't accountable
to anyone, and can do whatever you want...
geir
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 5/28/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On May 28, 2007, at 3:12 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> > On 5/28/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> note that Jeff Genender also wishes to participate, at least on
> >> JavaEE6 IIRC. You two should sync up on this (here)
> >
> > does the JCP has an issue with multiple expert having connections to a
> > single organization?
>
> No - it's left up to the spec lead.
what is the difference (in JCP terms) between being a representative
for apache and an expert?
is there any advantage for an expert who is an apache committer
representing apache rather than being an independent?
- robert
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by Felipe Leme <fe...@gmail.com>.
I can tell you Bill Shannon is pedantic on accepting experts, as the
JavaEE JSRs normally gets packed. So, unless you guys are really going
to participate actively, I would recommend we don't submit 2
representatives.
-- Felipe
On 5/28/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
> No - it's left up to the spec lead.
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On May 28, 2007, at 3:12 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 5/28/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> note that Jeff Genender also wishes to participate, at least on
>> JavaEE6 IIRC. You two should sync up on this (here)
>
> does the JCP has an issue with multiple expert having connections to a
> single organization?
No - it's left up to the spec lead.
geir
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 5/28/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> note that Jeff Genender also wishes to participate, at least on
> JavaEE6 IIRC. You two should sync up on this (here)
does the JCP has an issue with multiple expert having connections to a
single organization?
- robert
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On May 29, 2007, at 4:07 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 5/29/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On May 29, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>>
>> > I would also like to participate. My interest is mostly in the area
>> > of persistence API's and I've never been involved with the JCP
>> > before. Still I hope I'll be able to make meaningful contributions.
>>
>> Why not? :)
>
> i'm sure you will
>
>> > BTW, the only related JSR that I found (#313) is marked as
>> > "withdrawn". So what's the status of it anyways?
>>
>> "withdrawn" :)
>
> members of the EC seem to be more than a little upset with Sun over
> licensing ATM...
>
>> Sun needs to resubmit at some point...
>
> or we do ;-)
We actually can't. The spec lead for vX is the spec lead for vX+1
unless they transition it.
geir
>
> <ducks/>
>
> - robert
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 5/29/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On May 29, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
> > I would also like to participate. My interest is mostly in the area
> > of persistence API's and I've never been involved with the JCP
> > before. Still I hope I'll be able to make meaningful contributions.
>
> Why not? :)
i'm sure you will
> > BTW, the only related JSR that I found (#313) is marked as
> > "withdrawn". So what's the status of it anyways?
>
> "withdrawn" :)
members of the EC seem to be more than a little upset with Sun over
licensing ATM...
> Sun needs to resubmit at some point...
or we do ;-)
<ducks/>
- robert
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <aa...@apache.org>.
On May 29, 2007, at 6:43 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On May 29, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
>> I would also like to participate. My interest is mostly in the
>> area of persistence API's and I've never been involved with the
>> JCP before. Still I hope I'll be able to make meaningful
>> contributions.
>
> Why not? :)
I am reviewing the JCP participation guide [1], trying to make sense
of the process. So ASF (as a JCP member org) would submit the list of
experts for each JSR that we care about, ... from here things are
less clear. I assume there's some kind of expert participation
agreement involved, and the actual expert group discussions are done
on a private list. Is this so?
Anyways, I guess no action has to be taken until the withdrawn JSR
comes back :-)
Andrus
[1] http://jcp.org/en/participation/overview
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On May 29, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> I would also like to participate. My interest is mostly in the area
> of persistence API's and I've never been involved with the JCP
> before. Still I hope I'll be able to make meaningful contributions.
Why not? :)
>
> BTW, the only related JSR that I found (#313) is marked as
> "withdrawn". So what's the status of it anyways?
"withdrawn" :)
Sun needs to resubmit at some point...
geir
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On May 28, 2007, at 7:17 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> note that Jeff Genender also wishes to participate, at least on
>> JavaEE6 IIRC. You two should sync up on this (here)
>>
>> geir
>>
>> On May 25, 2007, at 2:53 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> Hey all. I'd like to participate in EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6 as an
>>> Apache rep on those specs. Shooting a note out here for discussion.
>>>
>>> I was fortunate enough to participate in EJB 3.0 as an
>>> independent, but no longer have independent status. My
>>> motivation for continued participation in the EJB spec is obvious
>>> (OpenEJB) and these days about half of what one things of in EJB
>>> is actually defined by the JavaEE6 spec (injection, naming, much
>>> of the xml schema, packaging, etc).
>>>
>>> -David
>>
>>
>
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jun 3, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> Hi Dain,
>
> Interesting... IMO that's a good decision. So is this also awaiting
> a submission from Sun? I'll definitely prefer to be involved with
> this specific JSR, rather than the whole JEE6.
Yes, the whole pile is being held up, I think. We should see it soon
though.
geir
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On May 29, 2007, at 8:59 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> From what I understand JPA will be split out into a separate JSR
>> this time (Thank you Geir and others).
>>
>> -dain
>>
>> On May 29, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>>
>>> I would also like to participate. My interest is mostly in the
>>> area of persistence API's and I've never been involved with the
>>> JCP before. Still I hope I'll be able to make meaningful
>>> contributions.
>>>
>>> BTW, the only related JSR that I found (#313) is marked as
>>> "withdrawn". So what's the status of it anyways?
>>>
>>> Andrus
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 28, 2007, at 7:17 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>> note that Jeff Genender also wishes to participate, at least on
>>>> JavaEE6 IIRC. You two should sync up on this (here)
>>>>
>>>> geir
>>>>
>>>> On May 25, 2007, at 2:53 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hey all. I'd like to participate in EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6 as an
>>>>> Apache rep on those specs. Shooting a note out here for
>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was fortunate enough to participate in EJB 3.0 as an
>>>>> independent, but no longer have independent status. My
>>>>> motivation for continued participation in the EJB spec is
>>>>> obvious (OpenEJB) and these days about half of what one things
>>>>> of in EJB is actually defined by the JavaEE6 spec (injection,
>>>>> naming, much of the xml schema, packaging, etc).
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <aa...@apache.org>.
Hi Dain,
Interesting... IMO that's a good decision. So is this also awaiting a
submission from Sun? I'll definitely prefer to be involved with this
specific JSR, rather than the whole JEE6.
Andrus
On May 29, 2007, at 8:59 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> From what I understand JPA will be split out into a separate JSR
> this time (Thank you Geir and others).
>
> -dain
>
> On May 29, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
>> I would also like to participate. My interest is mostly in the
>> area of persistence API's and I've never been involved with the
>> JCP before. Still I hope I'll be able to make meaningful
>> contributions.
>>
>> BTW, the only related JSR that I found (#313) is marked as
>> "withdrawn". So what's the status of it anyways?
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>>
>> On May 28, 2007, at 7:17 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> note that Jeff Genender also wishes to participate, at least on
>>> JavaEE6 IIRC. You two should sync up on this (here)
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>> On May 25, 2007, at 2:53 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey all. I'd like to participate in EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6 as an
>>>> Apache rep on those specs. Shooting a note out here for
>>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>> I was fortunate enough to participate in EJB 3.0 as an
>>>> independent, but no longer have independent status. My
>>>> motivation for continued participation in the EJB spec is
>>>> obvious (OpenEJB) and these days about half of what one things
>>>> of in EJB is actually defined by the JavaEE6 spec (injection,
>>>> naming, much of the xml schema, packaging, etc).
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Yes. There will be a separate one. (I still fondly recall that J1
where this was a hot item, being surrounded by many of the EG in the
tunnel between Moscone N and Moscone S, being told that this was
simply and utterly technically impossible...)
geir
On May 29, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> From what I understand JPA will be split out into a separate JSR
> this time (Thank you Geir and others).
>
> -dain
>
> On May 29, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
>> I would also like to participate. My interest is mostly in the
>> area of persistence API's and I've never been involved with the
>> JCP before. Still I hope I'll be able to make meaningful
>> contributions.
>>
>> BTW, the only related JSR that I found (#313) is marked as
>> "withdrawn". So what's the status of it anyways?
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>>
>> On May 28, 2007, at 7:17 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> note that Jeff Genender also wishes to participate, at least on
>>> JavaEE6 IIRC. You two should sync up on this (here)
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>> On May 25, 2007, at 2:53 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey all. I'd like to participate in EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6 as an
>>>> Apache rep on those specs. Shooting a note out here for
>>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>> I was fortunate enough to participate in EJB 3.0 as an
>>>> independent, but no longer have independent status. My
>>>> motivation for continued participation in the EJB spec is
>>>> obvious (OpenEJB) and these days about half of what one things
>>>> of in EJB is actually defined by the JavaEE6 spec (injection,
>>>> naming, much of the xml schema, packaging, etc).
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
From what I understand JPA will be split out into a separate JSR
this time (Thank you Geir and others).
-dain
On May 29, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> I would also like to participate. My interest is mostly in the area
> of persistence API's and I've never been involved with the JCP
> before. Still I hope I'll be able to make meaningful contributions.
>
> BTW, the only related JSR that I found (#313) is marked as
> "withdrawn". So what's the status of it anyways?
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On May 28, 2007, at 7:17 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> note that Jeff Genender also wishes to participate, at least on
>> JavaEE6 IIRC. You two should sync up on this (here)
>>
>> geir
>>
>> On May 25, 2007, at 2:53 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> Hey all. I'd like to participate in EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6 as an
>>> Apache rep on those specs. Shooting a note out here for discussion.
>>>
>>> I was fortunate enough to participate in EJB 3.0 as an
>>> independent, but no longer have independent status. My
>>> motivation for continued participation in the EJB spec is obvious
>>> (OpenEJB) and these days about half of what one things of in EJB
>>> is actually defined by the JavaEE6 spec (injection, naming, much
>>> of the xml schema, packaging, etc).
>>>
>>> -David
>>
>>
>
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
I would also like to participate. My interest is mostly in the area
of persistence API's and I've never been involved with the JCP
before. Still I hope I'll be able to make meaningful contributions.
BTW, the only related JSR that I found (#313) is marked as
"withdrawn". So what's the status of it anyways?
Andrus
On May 28, 2007, at 7:17 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> note that Jeff Genender also wishes to participate, at least on
> JavaEE6 IIRC. You two should sync up on this (here)
>
> geir
>
> On May 25, 2007, at 2:53 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> Hey all. I'd like to participate in EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6 as an
>> Apache rep on those specs. Shooting a note out here for discussion.
>>
>> I was fortunate enough to participate in EJB 3.0 as an
>> independent, but no longer have independent status. My motivation
>> for continued participation in the EJB spec is obvious (OpenEJB)
>> and these days about half of what one things of in EJB is actually
>> defined by the JavaEE6 spec (injection, naming, much of the xml
>> schema, packaging, etc).
>>
>> -David
>
>
Re: EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
note that Jeff Genender also wishes to participate, at least on
JavaEE6 IIRC. You two should sync up on this (here)
geir
On May 25, 2007, at 2:53 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> Hey all. I'd like to participate in EJB 3.1 and JavaEE6 as an
> Apache rep on those specs. Shooting a note out here for discussion.
>
> I was fortunate enough to participate in EJB 3.0 as an independent,
> but no longer have independent status. My motivation for continued
> participation in the EJB spec is obvious (OpenEJB) and these days
> about half of what one things of in EJB is actually defined by the
> JavaEE6 spec (injection, naming, much of the xml schema, packaging,
> etc).
>
> -David