JEE Status Meetings/2010-03-11
Java EE 6
- What can we get done in M7?
- List of Java EE 6 bugs that need to be rolled into the WTP 3.2 plan
- Glassfish Java EE 6 wizards
- Java EE Tools plan
- EJB Tools plan
- Replace Existing JavaEE Dependencies page - bugs of note: 303600 303706 304654
- Bugs marked with the Flexible Modules whiteboard entry
Modules always synchronized 304673 - any update?
Server Tools Enhancements:
|293742||Discussion continue. Not in plan, yet|
|286699||Need to review. Not in plan, yet|
Carl: We are focusing on Web Fragment support today- we put in the overlay icon and are putting in the Deployment Assembly page support.
Kaloyan: Can we get the smoke test updated to include Java EE 6?
Carl: Yes, I need to update that. For M7, we're planning on focusing on web fragment support. Kaloyan- for SAP, what are your plans?
Kaloyan: We want to change the servlet/filter/listener wizards to generate the new annotations for Java EE 6. We have also proposed a mock up of how the Deployment Assembly page can be improved.
Rob: I already put a patch out there today for that.
Kaloyan: Good. We will need to propose that for the PMC.
Carl: Is there anything JBoss is planning to contribute for M7?
Rob: Just the UI changes that I mentioned. We've really got a big regression that we would like to address - bug 305306. Right now, our main concern is to get some sort of patch out there for that.
Carl explained the process for making a patch available on the update site.
Rob explained the history behind 305306 and what happened, as well as his fix.
Max explained how this affects many users, but this is mainly a Maven issue in 3.1.2.
Max: We are planning on releasing JBoss Server Studio at EclipseCon. We would like this issue fixed by then.
Carl: We have one item that is still in plan - 289767
Kaloyan: Will move that to future- it still needs some more polish.
Rob: We also missed bug 303600.
Carl: Chuck says he will address this in M7.
Rob: Chuck is working towards completing 303657
Carl: We already discussed
Jason S: Jason P and I were talking before the call about all of the casting that we do. One thing we were thinking of, during M7, was to expand the VirtualComponent API to allow us to ask what type of component it is, instead of digging through calls to figure it out.
Rob: There was a commented out "getComponentID()" or somesuch on the API already.
Jason S: That is along the lines of what we were investigating.
Rob: There might be some binary type stuff that this would effect. Who the parent is can affect what type is returned. We could have some sort of reference resolver.
Jason S & Rob discussed this and various implications, caching issues, and such.
Carl: Is there a bug to comment on yet?
Jason S: No, not yet.