Jump to: navigation, search

Minutes of the JEE 5 Working Group meeting Mar 29, 2007

Revision as of 10:57, 3 April 2007 by Naci.dai.eteration.com (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Teleconference on JEE 5 Support in WTP Mar 29, 2007

Attendance

  • Naci Dai - Eteration
  • Kaloyan Raev - SAP
  • Chuck Bridgham - IBM
  • Paul Andersen - IBM
  • Neil Hauge - Oracle
  • Dave Gorton - BEA
  • Rob Frost - BEA
  • Shaun Smith - Oracle

Agenda

  • Review JEE 5 Use Case [[]] and comment on feasibility of achieving these goals by WTP 2.0
  • Go over priorities
  • Bug Status


Minutes

  • ND: JEE 5 use cases are published on the wiki. These are bare minimums that I think we should be able to support to call ourselves JEE5 compliant. None of these scenarios can run out of the box today. I would like to hear from our component leads if we can achieve them by WTP 2.0.

- The use cases are: 1) Standalone Web App (2.5) run on Tomcat 6. 2) Combined Scenario with Ear 5 containing Web2.5 with JSF 1.1 and EJB3 with JPA1 running on a JEE5 runtime.

  • CB: I think we can support these scenarios by WTp 2.0, I do not see important problems.
  • SS: We will need an additional scenario, with a single Web App with 2.5 + JPA 1 . That is the default scenario explained at the Dali website.
  • ND: Our server runtime support has issues also. We cannot target a module to a server runtime if there are no deployment descriptors. We can add one manually but it would be nicer if the wizrda created one.
  • CB: JEE5 spec does not require a DD for module. For example it will figure the contents of an ear by traversing the modules in the ear file.
  • ND: We have to make sure that Server runtime have this capability. i.e. be able to handle modules with no DD.
  • CB: Our model JEE5 extensibility API are committed to WTP2.0 stream.
  • ND: Are these sufficient for SAP?
  • KR: We have tried these APIs at SAP and they meet our needs for 2.0.
  • CB: We added content types to JEE5 model support. DD validators behave well when they do not recognize the DD version. EMF models also behave well when new versions are loaded.
  • ND: Bugs reviewed on the call:
  https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=126090
  https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=178073
  https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=179932
  https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=179972