[cdi-dev] Proposal for global CDI enablement

Mark Struberg struberg at yahoo.de
Thu Dec 20 03:35:28 EST 2012

> Any scope (normal scope or pseudo-scope) applied to a bean at source level is a 
> bean defining annotation (so you must add @Dependent to your class in order to 
> get it to be picked up as a dependent bean).

wohuuuuuuu, finally my dream became true!

I've been rambling over the auto-bean-pickup since years :D

My proposal: 

If we detect 

<beans version="1.1">... 

or a higher version, we disable this auto pickup for this BDA in the scanning.
We could btw also move CDI-18 'global enablement' to this condition.


----- Original Message -----
> From: Pete Muir <pmuir at bleepbleep.org.uk>
> To: cdi-dev <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>; jsr342-experts at javaee-spec.java.net
> Cc: 
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 2:52 PM
> Subject: [cdi-dev] Proposal for global CDI enablement
> I've been working with the Bill and Linda, the Java EE spec leads, as well 
> as with Jason, Stuart and Emmanuel at Red Hat, to come up with a proposal for 
> global enablement for CDI in Java EE 7. Based on Linda and Bill's poll of 
> the community, this appears to be much more popular than we had previously 
> thought, so we have decided to propose it, despite it being quite late into the 
> spec development. I think what we have come up with represents a good approach 
> to achieve it, and also addresses a long requested feature request, that CDI 
> should not consider every class a bean. Please let us know your thoughts. If you 
> aren't on the Java EE EG, or the observers list, or the same for CDI, then 
> please say, and I'll forward your thoughts.
> --------------------------------
> Background
> -----------------
> Globally enabling CI would allow other specifications in the Java EE platform to 
> rely on CDI, and not have to provide an abstraction over DI services, such as 
> those introduced by JSF managed beans, and considered by JAX-RS, Batch and 
> others.
> Challenges
> ----------------
> * The startup time of Weld is O(n) with the number of beans. We assert that it 
> is not possible for a CDI impl to attain an O(1) startup time, therefore 
> globally enabling CDI will increase the startup time of Java EE servers. For Red 
> Hat, low startup time is a top priority.
> * Compatibility with other users of JSR-330. By considering all deployments as 
> CDI deployments without any enablement marker, we will likely cause deployments 
> which used another JSR-330 implementation to fail. This would have worked on 
> Java EE 6. Other JSR-330 impls that fall into this camp are Spring and Guice.
> * Backwards compatibility. Some users may have intentionally not placed a 
> beans.xml into a deployment, but used CDI annotations, and enabled the beans 
> some other way, eg. via a portable extension.
> * A large proportion of Java EE users 800/1000 indicate they want this feature, 
> thus meaning we should try to address it
> Proposed solution
> -------------------------
> We introduce the concept of a "bean defining annotation" and define 
> that any class in any deployment (including those with no beans.xml) with a bean 
> defining annotation is discovered and may be a CDI bean, and can participate 
> fully in the application. Any archive with a beans.xml continues to work in the 
> same way, such that all classes in the archive are discovered and may be CDI 
> beans.
> This addresses the startup time problem. Whilst a scan of classes is still 
> required, the impact on startup time is negligible:
> * A Java EE server must scan all classes to discover other component defining 
> annotations such as EJBs, Servlet's, JAX-RS resources etc.
> * This scan can be done at the bytecode level, with no need to classload the 
> class, which our research shows is the costly part of CDI startup
> Any scope (normal scope or pseudo-scope) applied to a bean at source level is a 
> bean defining annotation (so you must add @Dependent to your class in order to 
> get it to be picked up as a dependent bean).
> Only classes with a bean defining annotation, or with an annotation, or 
> meta-annotation, present specified by @WithAnnotations are passed to 
> ProcessAnnotatedType observers (the exact semantics are defined by CDI 1.1 PRD 
> for @WithAnnotations). As mentioned above, if a ProcessAnnotatedType is observed 
> for a type without a bean defining annotation, as a result of having an 
> annotation present that is specified by @WithAnnotations, it may instruct the 
> container to add discover the class as a bean.
> Every archive in a deployment would be considered a bean archive, simply with 
> differing contents depending on the presence of beans.xml
> If a developer adds a beans.xml to their archive, behavior is as CDI 1.0. We 
> will add an attribute to beans.xml "auto-discover=true", which the 
> user may set to false in order to add a beans.xml and only have classes with a 
> bean defining annotation discovered, which allows beans.xml to be used as a 
> deployment descriptor but still limit the classes discovered.
> OPEN ISSUE: Should auto-discover be false by default for beans.xml with version 
> 1.1. This would mean that adding a beans.xml would have no impact on discovery 
> for 1.1 apps, however it is a significant change from 1.0.
> OPEN ISSUE: Should only scopes for which a CDI context exists be considered 
> component defining? This could introduce some thorny edge cases, but would 
> address the JSR-330 compatibility issue better.
> OPEN ISSUE: Should we extend auto-discover in beans.xml to allow complete 
> disablement of scanning e.g. 
> auto-discover="all|bean-defining-annotations-only|none" ?
> OPEN ISSUE: How should the ProcessAnnotatedType event instruct the container to 
> discover a class as a bean? Perhaps something like event.discover(clazz)?
> OPEN ISSUE: Should we integrate this with the package level scanning control we 
> have proposed for CDI 1.1?
> ---------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev

More information about the cdi-dev mailing list