[cdi-dev] PFD submission
pmuir at redhat.com
Fri Feb 22 16:22:01 EST 2013
On 22 Feb 2013, at 21:01, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de> wrote:
> Beans without any explicit scope still get picked up as @Dependent.
> I thought this was agreed to get dropped if beans.xml version=1.1 ?
This change is in, and if you upgrade a schema to 1.1, by default, it won't pick up classes without a bean defining annotation. This is mostly covered in 12.1 and 12.4, the rest of the changes for this were largely cosmetic or the section in chapter 2 defining a bean defining annotation.
> There are quite a few other wording and formatting changes which got added by bulk
I don't think there are any "bulk" changes (except Martin's patch to give every section an id), though I'm not quite sure what a "bulk" change is. All of the changes I've put have addressed specific issues.
> and make it hard to check for the differences since the last time I checked (and the EG didn't meet since 2 months ago).
Yes unfortunately my availability has been very patchy to work on the spec of late, for which I can only apologise. I am actively looking at ways to improve this for the next version of CDI (as we are now approaching the end of CDI 1.1, it's unlikely I can get anything sorted out before then). I'll let the list know as soon as I have anything definite in this area.
As usual, please do bring stuff up on the mailing list :-)
> From: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
> To: "cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org" <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:44 PM
> Subject: [cdi-dev] PFD submission
> We need to submit the PFD on Wednesday next week.
> Please review the attached copy of the spec, it contains the current spec, with the proposed changes I sent out earlier, along with excludes in XML.
> There isn't much more to add now, just a few bits of tidying up, which I'lll aim to do on Monday.
> Please get any issues to me asap.
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
More information about the cdi-dev