[cdi-dev] Time to start working on CDI lite
rmannibucau at gmail.com
Sun Aug 30 09:44:58 EDT 2015
2015-08-30 15:22 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <john.d.ament at gmail.com>:
> Personally, I'm not in favor of a slimmed down runtime. It was tried with
> EJB, but never implemented properly (most implementations that support
> EJB-lite actually support the entire thing, except for deprecated stuff).
+1, most of CDI is basic and quickly any light version will miss events or
other thing - in particular in maintaining micro services from experience.
Size of an implementation can easily be < 1M so not sure it would bring
anything. Only important point is what Antoine started to do ie ensuring EE
and SE parts are clearly identified and split in the spec.
> I think if we define SE properly we won't have a need for this.
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 8:07 AM Antonio Goncalves <
> antonio.goncalves at gmail.com> wrote:
>> @Antoine, so which content do you see in CDI Lite ? Are you sure about
>> events ?
>> I'm in favor of a "fatter" 330 that would have :
>> - @Inject : already there
>> - @Qualifier : already there
>> *Producers and disposers *
>> *Programatic lookup *
>> - *Java SE Bootstrap*
>> When you say "*The goal here is not to propose a new EE profile but a
>> subspec*", 330 could already be seen as a subspec. If you put events
>> apparts, what would be missing in this list in your point of view ? And
>> what obstacles do you see in archieving this ?
>> To boostrap CDI we have a CDIProvider, why not having an
>> InjectionProvider just to bootstrap 330 (then, CDIProvider could extend
>> InjectionProvider, so it bootstraps the all thing) ?
>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Antoine Sabot-Durand <
>> antoine at sabot-durand.net> wrote:
>>> Yes Arjan, I think it's the first reason. We really should work with
>>> them to understand what should be added to CDI 2.0 to have it as a first
>>> citizen DI in their spec.
>>> Le sam. 29 août 2015 à 23:15, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms at gmail.com> a
>>> écrit :
>>>> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Antonio Goncalves
>>>> <antonio.goncalves at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > I remember talking with the JAX-RS guys (Java EE), years ago (back in
>>>> > and their answer for not adopting CDI was "too heavy".
>>>> I can't find an exact reference anymore, but I somewhat remember that
>>>> one of the reasons was also simply that CDI as a general solution
>>>> finished late in Java EE 6, while JAX-RS finished earlier and had all
>>>> the work for their own DI solution already done.
>> Antonio Goncalves
>> Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
>> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> | Twitter
>> <http://twitter.com/agoncal> | LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Pluralsight
>> <http://pluralsight.com/training/Authors/Details/antonio-goncalves> | Paris
>> JUG <http://www.parisjug.org> | Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr>
>> cdi-dev mailing list
>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
>> code under the Apache License, Version 2 (
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
>> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
>> intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
> code under the Apache License, Version 2 (
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
> intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cdi-dev