You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Tim McConnell <ti...@gmail.com> on 2007/01/03 04:57:31 UTC
Re: Annotation processing
Hi David, thanks for kicking off this discussion and I agree with most of your steps
below. However, since it seems that "annotations" are now pervasive in many of the JSR
specifications (i.e., JSRs 77, 88, 175, 181, 220, 250 and probably even more that I
personally haven't uncovered) it seems like a concise set of responsibilities for all these
annotation-specific JSRs might mitigate some confusion
and hopefully prevent overlap and/or conflicts (i.e., who is going to do what).
So for example, I'm responsible for the Geronimo JEE5 Deployment JSR (88) and I'm making these three
assumptions below:
1 -- The current Geronimo JSR-88 implementation will be enhanced (by me) to provide a
"metadata-complete" XML deployment descriptor, which is essentially what you've described
below in steps 1-3.
2 -- The work associated with assumption #1 should encompass as many of the impacted JSRs as
possible on the Geronimo side from a deployment perspective to minimize the number of
folks making similar changes to the Geronimo builders/deployers. Thus, these JSRs should be
encompassed by the JSR-88 implementation for Geronimo:
-- JSR 77 (JEE5 management--this JSR in particular has already been mentioned as a
candidate by Paul and Chris and I agree with them)
-- JSR 88 (Deployment)
-- JSR 175 (Java annotations)
-- JSR 181 (Web Services metadata)
-- JSR 250 (Common annotations)
3 -- Your step number 4 below (add objects to inject resources) feels like a duplicate of
your step 3 (deploy from the modified xml descriptor...) but again will/should be
implemented under the auspices of JSR-88.
So, if that seems reasonable then I would still have a couple questions:
1 -- Since JSR 220 (EJB) is impacted by annotations, will there be a separate and distinct
deployment implementation for annotations in OpenEJB ?? I'm guessing yes based on the
OPENEJB-216 JIRA and all its subtasks but just would again like some validation so as to
better understand the implications if any from a Geronimo responsibility perspective.
2 -- Are there any other JSRs impacted by annotations for JEE5 compliance ??
Please comment. Thanks much
Tim
David Jencks wrote:
> I think we have a lot of work to do for annotation processing, and I
> don't recall seeing any discussion of the steps involved. I haven't
> read most of the specs involved so what I say is probably full of
> errors, but this provides a great opportunity to correct me :-)
>
>
> I think there are 2 kinds of annotations: some describe something about
> the class that is exposed to the outside world, such as @WebService, and
> some describe something supplied to the class from its environment, such
> as @Resource. The @Resource type annotations result in something
> getting bound in the components java:comp/env jndi context, and then
> that thing getting assigned to the annotated field.
>
> I believe all of these need to be translated to the xml in the spec
> deployment descriptor and made available through jsr-77. This is a
> pretty major change to jsr-77 since previously we were supposed to
> provide the dd unchanged as a string.
>
> I think that there is no further information needed for the "exposing"
> annotations: once they are in the xml, we can just deploy from the xml
> and we're done. However for the "resource injection" annotations, we
> still need some code to get the object out of jndi and put it into the
> field.
>
>
> So, here's how I imagine this working:
>
> Deploy time:
>
> 1. scan all the classes for annotations
> 2. process them into the xml descriptor
> 3. deploy from the modified xml descriptor, includiing constructing the
> jndi tree (as done currently)
> 4. add objects to inject resources
>
> Run time:
> start up just like we do now
>
> So, I don't think we have any of this code in geronimo. I suspect there
> is a bunch of simliar code in other projects such as openejb, openjpa,
> and cxf (at least) How much can we crib from elsewhere?
>
> Comments desperately needed :-)
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
--
Thanks,
Tim McConnell
Re: Annotation processing
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jan 4, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
> Now that's very interesting, I've been using the "Annotation Type
> Hierarchy" from http://java.sun.com/javaee/5/docs/api/overview-
> tree.html but your list appears to be more accurate.....
Seems like they're missing these two:
javax.xml.ws.addressing.Action
javax.xml.ws.addressing.FaultAction
Strange....
-David
>
> David Blevins wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
>>> Hi David, your definitive list of JEE5 annotations is wonderful--
>>> I've been looking all over the
>>> place trying to locate the authoritative source. Where/how did
>>> you find them ??
>>>
>> Grepped all the spec jars and compared that against the TCK for
>> accuracy and to fill in any missing.
>> -David
>>>
>>> David Blevins wrote:
>>>> On Jan 2, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
>>>>> Hi David, thanks for kicking off this discussion and I agree
>>>>> with most of your steps
>>>>> below. However, since it seems that "annotations" are now
>>>>> pervasive in many of the JSR
>>>>> specifications (i.e., JSRs 77, 88, 175, 181, 220, 250 and
>>>>> probably even more that I
>>>>> personally haven't uncovered) it seems like a concise set of
>>>>> responsibilities for all these
>>>>> annotation-specific JSRs might mitigate some confusion
>>>>> and hopefully prevent overlap and/or conflicts (i.e., who is
>>>>> going to do what).
>>>>>
>>>>> So for example, I'm responsible for the Geronimo JEE5
>>>>> Deployment JSR (88) and I'm making these three
>>>>> assumptions below:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 -- The current Geronimo JSR-88 implementation will be
>>>>> enhanced (by me) to provide a
>>>>> "metadata-complete" XML deployment descriptor, which is
>>>>> essentially what you've described
>>>>> below in steps 1-3.
>>>>> 2 -- The work associated with assumption #1 should encompass as
>>>>> many of the impacted JSRs as
>>>>> possible on the Geronimo side from a deployment perspective to
>>>>> minimize the number of
>>>>> folks making similar changes to the Geronimo builders/
>>>>> deployers. Thus, these JSRs should be
>>>>> encompassed by the JSR-88 implementation for Geronimo:
>>>>> -- JSR 77 (JEE5 management--this JSR in particular has
>>>>> already been mentioned as a
>>>>> candidate by Paul and Chris and I agree with them)
>>>>> -- JSR 88 (Deployment)
>>>>> -- JSR 175 (Java annotations)
>>>>> -- JSR 181 (Web Services metadata)
>>>>> -- JSR 250 (Common annotations)
>>>>> 3 -- Your step number 4 below (add objects to inject resources)
>>>>> feels like a duplicate of
>>>>> your step 3 (deploy from the modified xml descriptor...) but
>>>>> again will/should be
>>>>> implemented under the auspices of JSR-88.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if that seems reasonable then I would still have a couple
>>>>> questions:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 -- Since JSR 220 (EJB) is impacted by annotations, will there
>>>>> be a separate and distinct
>>>>> deployment implementation for annotations in OpenEJB ?? I'm
>>>>> guessing yes based on the
>>>>> OPENEJB-216 JIRA and all its subtasks but just would again like
>>>>> some validation so as to
>>>>> better understand the implications if any from a Geronimo
>>>>> responsibility perspective.
>>>>> 2 -- Are there any other JSRs impacted by annotations for JEE5
>>>>> compliance ??
>>>>>
>>>> Well, that's certainly an interesting idea. There are 149
>>>> annotations in all of Java EE 5 [1] and only 10 of them are
>>>> generic JSR 250 annotations -- and most specs don't use those.
>>>> Are you sure consolidating all of them into one task is a good
>>>> idea? You'd be looking at months of work just to catch up to
>>>> where most projects already are.
>>>> If this is truly just about getting meta-data complete
>>>> descriptors, there's really no work for ejbs anyway as there'll
>>>> be a metadata-complete ejb-jar.xml in the GBeans we produce from
>>>> deployment which is the way the current integration satisfies
>>>> the JSR-88 requirement.
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> -David
>>>> [1] Made a list for you http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/java-
>>>> ee-5-annotations.html
>>>
>>> --Thanks,
>>> Tim McConnell
>>>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Tim McConnell
>
Re: Annotation processing
Posted by Tim McConnell <ti...@gmail.com>.
Now that's very interesting, I've been using the "Annotation Type Hierarchy" from
http://java.sun.com/javaee/5/docs/api/overview-tree.html but your list appears to be more accurate.....
David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Jan 4, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
>
>> Hi David, your definitive list of JEE5 annotations is wonderful--I've
>> been looking all over the
>> place trying to locate the authoritative source. Where/how did you
>> find them ??
>>
>
> Grepped all the spec jars and compared that against the TCK for accuracy
> and to fill in any missing.
>
> -David
>
>>
>> David Blevins wrote:
>>> On Jan 2, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
>>>> Hi David, thanks for kicking off this discussion and I agree with
>>>> most of your steps
>>>> below. However, since it seems that "annotations" are now pervasive
>>>> in many of the JSR
>>>> specifications (i.e., JSRs 77, 88, 175, 181, 220, 250 and probably
>>>> even more that I
>>>> personally haven't uncovered) it seems like a concise set of
>>>> responsibilities for all these
>>>> annotation-specific JSRs might mitigate some confusion
>>>> and hopefully prevent overlap and/or conflicts (i.e., who is going
>>>> to do what).
>>>>
>>>> So for example, I'm responsible for the Geronimo JEE5 Deployment JSR
>>>> (88) and I'm making these three
>>>> assumptions below:
>>>>
>>>> 1 -- The current Geronimo JSR-88 implementation will be enhanced (by
>>>> me) to provide a
>>>> "metadata-complete" XML deployment descriptor, which is essentially
>>>> what you've described
>>>> below in steps 1-3.
>>>> 2 -- The work associated with assumption #1 should encompass as many
>>>> of the impacted JSRs as
>>>> possible on the Geronimo side from a deployment perspective to
>>>> minimize the number of
>>>> folks making similar changes to the Geronimo builders/deployers.
>>>> Thus, these JSRs should be
>>>> encompassed by the JSR-88 implementation for Geronimo:
>>>> -- JSR 77 (JEE5 management--this JSR in particular has
>>>> already been mentioned as a
>>>> candidate by Paul and Chris and I agree with them)
>>>> -- JSR 88 (Deployment)
>>>> -- JSR 175 (Java annotations)
>>>> -- JSR 181 (Web Services metadata)
>>>> -- JSR 250 (Common annotations)
>>>> 3 -- Your step number 4 below (add objects to inject resources)
>>>> feels like a duplicate of
>>>> your step 3 (deploy from the modified xml descriptor...) but again
>>>> will/should be
>>>> implemented under the auspices of JSR-88.
>>>>
>>>> So, if that seems reasonable then I would still have a couple
>>>> questions:
>>>>
>>>> 1 -- Since JSR 220 (EJB) is impacted by annotations, will there be a
>>>> separate and distinct
>>>> deployment implementation for annotations in OpenEJB ?? I'm guessing
>>>> yes based on the
>>>> OPENEJB-216 JIRA and all its subtasks but just would again like some
>>>> validation so as to
>>>> better understand the implications if any from a Geronimo
>>>> responsibility perspective.
>>>> 2 -- Are there any other JSRs impacted by annotations for JEE5
>>>> compliance ??
>>>>
>>> Well, that's certainly an interesting idea. There are 149
>>> annotations in all of Java EE 5 [1] and only 10 of them are generic
>>> JSR 250 annotations -- and most specs don't use those. Are you sure
>>> consolidating all of them into one task is a good idea? You'd be
>>> looking at months of work just to catch up to where most projects
>>> already are.
>>> If this is truly just about getting meta-data complete descriptors,
>>> there's really no work for ejbs anyway as there'll be a
>>> metadata-complete ejb-jar.xml in the GBeans we produce from
>>> deployment which is the way the current integration satisfies the
>>> JSR-88 requirement.
>>> Thoughts?
>>> -David
>>> [1] Made a list for you
>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/java-ee-5-annotations.html
>>
>> --Thanks,
>> Tim McConnell
>>
>
>
--
Thanks,
Tim McConnell
Re: Annotation processing
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jan 4, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
> Hi David, your definitive list of JEE5 annotations is wonderful--
> I've been looking all over the
> place trying to locate the authoritative source. Where/how did you
> find them ??
>
Grepped all the spec jars and compared that against the TCK for
accuracy and to fill in any missing.
-David
>
> David Blevins wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
>>> Hi David, thanks for kicking off this discussion and I agree with
>>> most of your steps
>>> below. However, since it seems that "annotations" are now
>>> pervasive in many of the JSR
>>> specifications (i.e., JSRs 77, 88, 175, 181, 220, 250 and
>>> probably even more that I
>>> personally haven't uncovered) it seems like a concise set of
>>> responsibilities for all these
>>> annotation-specific JSRs might mitigate some confusion
>>> and hopefully prevent overlap and/or conflicts (i.e., who is
>>> going to do what).
>>>
>>> So for example, I'm responsible for the Geronimo JEE5 Deployment
>>> JSR (88) and I'm making these three
>>> assumptions below:
>>>
>>> 1 -- The current Geronimo JSR-88 implementation will be enhanced
>>> (by me) to provide a
>>> "metadata-complete" XML deployment descriptor, which is
>>> essentially what you've described
>>> below in steps 1-3.
>>> 2 -- The work associated with assumption #1 should encompass as
>>> many of the impacted JSRs as
>>> possible on the Geronimo side from a deployment perspective to
>>> minimize the number of
>>> folks making similar changes to the Geronimo builders/deployers.
>>> Thus, these JSRs should be
>>> encompassed by the JSR-88 implementation for Geronimo:
>>> -- JSR 77 (JEE5 management--this JSR in particular has
>>> already been mentioned as a
>>> candidate by Paul and Chris and I agree with them)
>>> -- JSR 88 (Deployment)
>>> -- JSR 175 (Java annotations)
>>> -- JSR 181 (Web Services metadata)
>>> -- JSR 250 (Common annotations)
>>> 3 -- Your step number 4 below (add objects to inject resources)
>>> feels like a duplicate of
>>> your step 3 (deploy from the modified xml descriptor...) but
>>> again will/should be
>>> implemented under the auspices of JSR-88.
>>>
>>> So, if that seems reasonable then I would still have a couple
>>> questions:
>>>
>>> 1 -- Since JSR 220 (EJB) is impacted by annotations, will there
>>> be a separate and distinct
>>> deployment implementation for annotations in OpenEJB ?? I'm
>>> guessing yes based on the
>>> OPENEJB-216 JIRA and all its subtasks but just would again like
>>> some validation so as to
>>> better understand the implications if any from a Geronimo
>>> responsibility perspective.
>>> 2 -- Are there any other JSRs impacted by annotations for JEE5
>>> compliance ??
>>>
>> Well, that's certainly an interesting idea. There are 149
>> annotations in all of Java EE 5 [1] and only 10 of them are
>> generic JSR 250 annotations -- and most specs don't use those.
>> Are you sure consolidating all of them into one task is a good
>> idea? You'd be looking at months of work just to catch up to
>> where most projects already are.
>> If this is truly just about getting meta-data complete
>> descriptors, there's really no work for ejbs anyway as there'll be
>> a metadata-complete ejb-jar.xml in the GBeans we produce from
>> deployment which is the way the current integration satisfies the
>> JSR-88 requirement.
>> Thoughts?
>> -David
>> [1] Made a list for you http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/java-ee-5-
>> annotations.html
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Tim McConnell
>
Re: Annotation processing
Posted by Tim McConnell <ti...@gmail.com>.
Hi David, your definitive list of JEE5 annotations is wonderful--I've been looking all over the
place trying to locate the authoritative source. Where/how did you find them ??
Tim
David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Jan 2, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
>
>> Hi David, thanks for kicking off this discussion and I agree with most
>> of your steps
>> below. However, since it seems that "annotations" are now pervasive in
>> many of the JSR
>> specifications (i.e., JSRs 77, 88, 175, 181, 220, 250 and probably
>> even more that I
>> personally haven't uncovered) it seems like a concise set of
>> responsibilities for all these
>> annotation-specific JSRs might mitigate some confusion
>> and hopefully prevent overlap and/or conflicts (i.e., who is going to
>> do what).
>>
>> So for example, I'm responsible for the Geronimo JEE5 Deployment JSR
>> (88) and I'm making these three
>> assumptions below:
>>
>> 1 -- The current Geronimo JSR-88 implementation will be enhanced (by
>> me) to provide a
>> "metadata-complete" XML deployment descriptor, which is essentially
>> what you've described
>> below in steps 1-3.
>> 2 -- The work associated with assumption #1 should encompass as many
>> of the impacted JSRs as
>> possible on the Geronimo side from a deployment perspective to
>> minimize the number of
>> folks making similar changes to the Geronimo builders/deployers. Thus,
>> these JSRs should be
>> encompassed by the JSR-88 implementation for Geronimo:
>> -- JSR 77 (JEE5 management--this JSR in particular has already
>> been mentioned as a
>> candidate by Paul and Chris and I agree with them)
>> -- JSR 88 (Deployment)
>> -- JSR 175 (Java annotations)
>> -- JSR 181 (Web Services metadata)
>> -- JSR 250 (Common annotations)
>> 3 -- Your step number 4 below (add objects to inject resources) feels
>> like a duplicate of
>> your step 3 (deploy from the modified xml descriptor...) but again
>> will/should be
>> implemented under the auspices of JSR-88.
>>
>> So, if that seems reasonable then I would still have a couple questions:
>>
>> 1 -- Since JSR 220 (EJB) is impacted by annotations, will there be a
>> separate and distinct
>> deployment implementation for annotations in OpenEJB ?? I'm guessing
>> yes based on the
>> OPENEJB-216 JIRA and all its subtasks but just would again like some
>> validation so as to
>> better understand the implications if any from a Geronimo
>> responsibility perspective.
>> 2 -- Are there any other JSRs impacted by annotations for JEE5
>> compliance ??
>>
>
> Well, that's certainly an interesting idea. There are 149 annotations
> in all of Java EE 5 [1] and only 10 of them are generic JSR 250
> annotations -- and most specs don't use those. Are you sure
> consolidating all of them into one task is a good idea? You'd be
> looking at months of work just to catch up to where most projects
> already are.
>
> If this is truly just about getting meta-data complete descriptors,
> there's really no work for ejbs anyway as there'll be a
> metadata-complete ejb-jar.xml in the GBeans we produce from deployment
> which is the way the current integration satisfies the JSR-88 requirement.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -David
>
> [1] Made a list for you
> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/java-ee-5-annotations.html
>
>
--
Thanks,
Tim McConnell
Re: Annotation processing
Posted by Tim McConnell <ti...@gmail.com>.
Hi David, sorry if I wasn't sufficiently clear. I not suggesting that we redo anything that's
already been done for annotations in the other projects (e.g., openejb, openjpa, cfx, axis, etc..).
I'm really just suggesting that there is some amount of work remaining in Geronimo related to
deployment and annotations (e.g., JSR-88, JSR-77, JSR-250, etc.) and since I've volunteered to be
responsible for JSR-88, I thought it might be more efficient to have as many of these changes as
possible done as part of the JSR-88 implementation. I "believe" this is a valid assumption for
JSR-77. I'm not as certain about any of the other JSR's though.
Thanks
David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Jan 2, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
>
>> Hi David, thanks for kicking off this discussion and I agree with most
>> of your steps
>> below. However, since it seems that "annotations" are now pervasive in
>> many of the JSR
>> specifications (i.e., JSRs 77, 88, 175, 181, 220, 250 and probably
>> even more that I
>> personally haven't uncovered) it seems like a concise set of
>> responsibilities for all these
>> annotation-specific JSRs might mitigate some confusion
>> and hopefully prevent overlap and/or conflicts (i.e., who is going to
>> do what).
>>
>> So for example, I'm responsible for the Geronimo JEE5 Deployment JSR
>> (88) and I'm making these three
>> assumptions below:
>>
>> 1 -- The current Geronimo JSR-88 implementation will be enhanced (by
>> me) to provide a
>> "metadata-complete" XML deployment descriptor, which is essentially
>> what you've described
>> below in steps 1-3.
>> 2 -- The work associated with assumption #1 should encompass as many
>> of the impacted JSRs as
>> possible on the Geronimo side from a deployment perspective to
>> minimize the number of
>> folks making similar changes to the Geronimo builders/deployers. Thus,
>> these JSRs should be
>> encompassed by the JSR-88 implementation for Geronimo:
>> -- JSR 77 (JEE5 management--this JSR in particular has already
>> been mentioned as a
>> candidate by Paul and Chris and I agree with them)
>> -- JSR 88 (Deployment)
>> -- JSR 175 (Java annotations)
>> -- JSR 181 (Web Services metadata)
>> -- JSR 250 (Common annotations)
>> 3 -- Your step number 4 below (add objects to inject resources) feels
>> like a duplicate of
>> your step 3 (deploy from the modified xml descriptor...) but again
>> will/should be
>> implemented under the auspices of JSR-88.
>>
>> So, if that seems reasonable then I would still have a couple questions:
>>
>> 1 -- Since JSR 220 (EJB) is impacted by annotations, will there be a
>> separate and distinct
>> deployment implementation for annotations in OpenEJB ?? I'm guessing
>> yes based on the
>> OPENEJB-216 JIRA and all its subtasks but just would again like some
>> validation so as to
>> better understand the implications if any from a Geronimo
>> responsibility perspective.
>> 2 -- Are there any other JSRs impacted by annotations for JEE5
>> compliance ??
>>
>
> Well, that's certainly an interesting idea. There are 149 annotations
> in all of Java EE 5 [1] and only 10 of them are generic JSR 250
> annotations -- and most specs don't use those. Are you sure
> consolidating all of them into one task is a good idea? You'd be
> looking at months of work just to catch up to where most projects
> already are.
>
> If this is truly just about getting meta-data complete descriptors,
> there's really no work for ejbs anyway as there'll be a
> metadata-complete ejb-jar.xml in the GBeans we produce from deployment
> which is the way the current integration satisfies the JSR-88 requirement.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -David
>
> [1] Made a list for you
> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/java-ee-5-annotations.html
>
>
--
Thanks,
Tim McConnell
Re: Annotation processing
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jan 2, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
> Hi David, thanks for kicking off this discussion and I agree with
> most of your steps
> below. However, since it seems that "annotations" are now pervasive
> in many of the JSR
> specifications (i.e., JSRs 77, 88, 175, 181, 220, 250 and probably
> even more that I
> personally haven't uncovered) it seems like a concise set of
> responsibilities for all these
> annotation-specific JSRs might mitigate some confusion
> and hopefully prevent overlap and/or conflicts (i.e., who is going
> to do what).
>
> So for example, I'm responsible for the Geronimo JEE5 Deployment
> JSR (88) and I'm making these three
> assumptions below:
>
> 1 -- The current Geronimo JSR-88 implementation will be enhanced
> (by me) to provide a
> "metadata-complete" XML deployment descriptor, which is essentially
> what you've described
> below in steps 1-3.
> 2 -- The work associated with assumption #1 should encompass as
> many of the impacted JSRs as
> possible on the Geronimo side from a deployment perspective to
> minimize the number of
> folks making similar changes to the Geronimo builders/deployers.
> Thus, these JSRs should be
> encompassed by the JSR-88 implementation for Geronimo:
> -- JSR 77 (JEE5 management--this JSR in particular has already
> been mentioned as a
> candidate by Paul and Chris and I agree with them)
> -- JSR 88 (Deployment)
> -- JSR 175 (Java annotations)
> -- JSR 181 (Web Services metadata)
> -- JSR 250 (Common annotations)
> 3 -- Your step number 4 below (add objects to inject resources)
> feels like a duplicate of
> your step 3 (deploy from the modified xml descriptor...) but again
> will/should be
> implemented under the auspices of JSR-88.
>
> So, if that seems reasonable then I would still have a couple
> questions:
>
> 1 -- Since JSR 220 (EJB) is impacted by annotations, will there be
> a separate and distinct
> deployment implementation for annotations in OpenEJB ?? I'm
> guessing yes based on the
> OPENEJB-216 JIRA and all its subtasks but just would again like
> some validation so as to
> better understand the implications if any from a Geronimo
> responsibility perspective.
> 2 -- Are there any other JSRs impacted by annotations for JEE5
> compliance ??
>
Well, that's certainly an interesting idea. There are 149
annotations in all of Java EE 5 [1] and only 10 of them are generic
JSR 250 annotations -- and most specs don't use those. Are you sure
consolidating all of them into one task is a good idea? You'd be
looking at months of work just to catch up to where most projects
already are.
If this is truly just about getting meta-data complete descriptors,
there's really no work for ejbs anyway as there'll be a metadata-
complete ejb-jar.xml in the GBeans we produce from deployment which
is the way the current integration satisfies the JSR-88 requirement.
Thoughts?
-David
[1] Made a list for you http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/java-ee-5-
annotations.html