[cdi-dev] Time to start working on CDI lite
Werner Keil
werner.keil at gmail.com
Mon Aug 31 04:22:34 EDT 2015
Good points by both of you.
@Mark about your earlier posts
Sure, 330 started a bit later than 299, and I know best (because I was one
of the few EC members also actively participating in discussion threads
like Google Groups to help them find synergies) there was a bit of "pissing
contest" or "not invented here" friction between Spec Leads and experts of
299 and 330 (in itself the "least common denominator" of several other
ideas including Spring or Guice)
We saw these things go pretty wrong in cases like JSR 310 (the Spec Lead
just figured everything was "crap" that hd did not invent, and only a bit
of naming or feature cropping was possible by JDK architects and Oracle,
but a lot of things are reinvented even when it comes to formatting, etc.
not at all in line with other parts Java SE) or 107 vs. 347 (where the
latter simply gave up due to lack of interest or resources, despite
proposed by the compnay that also leads the CDI spec) but for most parts
I'd say, it went reasonably well for 330 and 299+
Werner
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:11 AM, <cdi-dev-request at lists.jboss.org> wrote:
> Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> cdi-dev-request at lists.jboss.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> cdi-dev-owner at lists.jboss.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of cdi-dev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Time to start working on CDI lite (Romain Manni-Bucau)
> 2. Re: Time to start working on CDI lite (Martin Kouba)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:00:58 +0200
> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Time to start working on CDI lite
> To: Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves at gmail.com>
> Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CACLE=
> 7MzVcBrhnoeUpo6ZAMpDu_04SOWSttWc-hRJL4wm8vpDw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> @Antonio: spring and guice have events, they just dont work the same way
> CDI defined them but not a big deal IMO to support them (just one more
> processor for spring for instance).
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
> <http://www.tomitribe.com>
>
> 2015-08-31 9:57 GMT+02:00 Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves at gmail.com>:
>
> > I don't see Events in a "Lite" version because the other DI frameworks
> > don't use them. A "fatter" 330 with producers, programmatic lookup and
> > bootstrap, could be "easily" implemented by Spring, Guice... If we leave
> > events in a Lite version, then it won't be the case, and Weld and OWB
> will
> > be the only two implementations.
> >
> > For me, a Lite version would just be about DI. If Weld uses events
> > internally to archieve basic DI, well, it's just an implementation
> > decision, not a spec. I would not even try to standardize the way @Inject
> > works (like Romain said, @Inject doesn't work the same in Weld or
> Spring),
> > let's leave it like this. If you take back Antoine sentence "*This would
> > allow using CDI in constrained environment like mobile or embedded
> devices*",
> > then I don't think events would fit here.
> >
> > Antonio
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>
> wrote:
> >
> >> > For me, a Light version of CDI is clearly the features number. That's
> >> why I don't see events in it.
> >>
> >> We did discuss this last year on the f2f meeting. The problem lies
> within
> >> our Extension mechanism. Without events you also need to drop the
> Extension
> >> mechanism. And to be honest, this is THE major hit in all CDI?
> >> Sorry to be the bad guy busting all those ideas. I really don?t want to,
> >> but better now than too late down the road ;)
> >>
> >> It?s really tricky as many features are heavily based on each other.
> E.g.
> >> by removing scanning you could get rid of javassist/asm/etc ? nope, we
> also
> >> have our class proxies which need bytecode tinkering. So remove
> >> interceptors and decorators too? Well yea, but we still have
> normalscoping
> >> -> what is left? basically spring prototype and singleton. Hmm. that?s
> not
> >> that much compared to full CDI. And all that for only 200kByte?
> >> (Btw we also discussed generating the bytecode classes at build time,
> but
> >> then we still miss the dynamics we get from Extensions, e.g. PAT adding
> an
> >> interceptor annotation)
> >> Just to give you a rough idea how this all works together when it comes
> >> to implementation details?
> >> Please feel free to ask Jozef and me for further infos on
> ?dependencies?.
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>
> >> > Am 30.08.2015 um 18:09 schrieb Antonio Goncalves <
> >> antonio.goncalves at gmail.com>:
> >> >
> >> > For me, a Light version of CDI is clearly the features number. That's
> >> why I don't see events in it.
> >> >
> >> > For me, a CDI Lite would just focus on DI. If CDI has @Produces and
> >> Spring has @Bean, then it's because 330 lakes this functionality.
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >> rmannibucau at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Lite can have several definition, let's try to list them up if it can
> >> help:
> >> >
> >> > - binary size: for me until 3M for an app it is "Lite"
> >> > - features number: the whole IoC set of feature is light since you
> >> almost always need it, it means you can do lighter but it wouldnt be
> used -
> >> check spring, who uses only spring-ioc and not context or more?
> >> > - features complexity: sure we are not light here but supporting
> scopes
> >> already breaks "Lite-ness" IMO so not a real issue
> >> >
> >> > So my view is CDI "SE" is light enough - as a spec and spec can't
> >> affect implementations so seems the fight is not on the right side to
> me.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> > @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber
> >> >
> >> > 2015-08-30 15:57 GMT+02:00 Antonio Goncalves <
> >> antonio.goncalves at gmail.com>:
> >> > It's funny, I feel I'm in Rod Johnson shoes back in Java EE 6 where he
> >> forked 330 because he found CDI was doing too much ;o)
> >> >
> >> > For me, "CDI Lite" was just basic dependency injection. The fact that
> >> CDI can now run on SE (like JPA....), is good... but for me it has
> nothing
> >> to do with Light : it's the entire thing that can bootstrap in SE. Good.
> >> >
> >> > So what is Lite for you guys ?
> >> >
> >> > Antonio
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >> rmannibucau at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> > John
> >> >
> >> > 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) ?
> >> >
> >> > Antonio
> >> >
> >> > 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 ao?t 2015 ? 23:15, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms at gmail.com> a
> >> ?crit :
> >> > 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
> >> EE6),
> >> > > 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 | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx
> France
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > cdi-dev mailing list
> >> > cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Antonio Goncalves
> >> > Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
> >> >
> >> > Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx
> France
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Antonio Goncalves
> >> > Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
> >> >
> >> > Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx
> France
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > cdi-dev mailing list
> >> > cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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>
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20150831/4d1b9468/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:11:54 +0200
> From: Martin Kouba <mkouba at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Time to start working on CDI lite
> To: Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves at gmail.com>, Mark Struberg
> <struberg at yahoo.de>
> Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> Message-ID: <55E40C4A.4090905 at redhat.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> Dne 31.8.2015 v 09:57 Antonio Goncalves napsal(a):
> > I don't see Events in a "Lite" version because the other DI frameworks
> > don't use them. A "fatter" 330 with producers, programmatic lookup and
> > bootstrap, could be "easily" implemented by Spring, Guice... If we leave
> > events in a Lite version, then it won't be the case, and Weld and OWB
> > will be the only two implementations.
> >
> > For me, a Lite version would just be about DI. If Weld uses events
> > internally to archieve basic DI, well, it's just an implementation
> > decision, not a spec. I would not even try to standardize the way
> > @Inject works (like Romain said, @Inject doesn't work the same in Weld
> > or Spring), let's leave it like this.
>
> If you don't standardize how @Inject works then what's the purpose of
> having something like CDI Lite and many implementations which work
> differently? A user of implementation "A" will not be able to switch to
> implementation "B" easily. And that's one of the most important benefits
> of standardization...
>
> If you take back Antoine sentence
> > "/This would allow using CDI in constrained environment like mobile or
> > embedded devices/", then I don't think events would fit here.
> >
> > Antonio
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de
> > <mailto:struberg at yahoo.de>> wrote:
> >
> > > For me, a Light version of CDI is clearly the features number.
> That's why I don't see events in it.
> >
> > We did discuss this last year on the f2f meeting. The problem lies
> > within our Extension mechanism. Without events you also need to drop
> > the Extension mechanism. And to be honest, this is THE major hit in
> > all CDI?
> > Sorry to be the bad guy busting all those ideas. I really don?t want
> > to, but better now than too late down the road ;)
> >
> > It?s really tricky as many features are heavily based on each other.
> > E.g. by removing scanning you could get rid of javassist/asm/etc ?
> > nope, we also have our class proxies which need bytecode tinkering.
> > So remove interceptors and decorators too? Well yea, but we still
> > have normalscoping -> what is left? basically spring prototype and
> > singleton. Hmm. that?s not that much compared to full CDI. And all
> > that for only 200kByte?
> > (Btw we also discussed generating the bytecode classes at build
> > time, but then we still miss the dynamics we get from Extensions,
> > e.g. PAT adding an interceptor annotation)
> > Just to give you a rough idea how this all works together when it
> > comes to implementation details?
> > Please feel free to ask Jozef and me for further infos on
> > ?dependencies?.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > > Am 30.08.2015 um 18:09 schrieb Antonio Goncalves
> > <antonio.goncalves at gmail.com <mailto:antonio.goncalves at gmail.com>>:
> > >
> > > For me, a Light version of CDI is clearly the features number.
> > That's why I don't see events in it.
> > >
> > > For me, a CDI Lite would just focus on DI. If CDI has @Produces
> > and Spring has @Bean, then it's because 330 lakes this functionality.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
> > <rmannibucau at gmail.com <mailto:rmannibucau at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > Lite can have several definition, let's try to list them up if it
> > can help:
> > >
> > > - binary size: for me until 3M for an app it is "Lite"
> > > - features number: the whole IoC set of feature is light since
> > you almost always need it, it means you can do lighter but it
> > wouldnt be used - check spring, who uses only spring-ioc and not
> > context or more?
> > > - features complexity: sure we are not light here but supporting
> > scopes already breaks "Lite-ness" IMO so not a real issue
> > >
> > > So my view is CDI "SE" is light enough - as a spec and spec can't
> > affect implementations so seems the fight is not on the right side
> > to me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber
> > >
> > > 2015-08-30 15:57 GMT+02:00 Antonio Goncalves
> > <antonio.goncalves at gmail.com <mailto:antonio.goncalves at gmail.com>>:
> > > It's funny, I feel I'm in Rod Johnson shoes back in Java EE 6
> > where he forked 330 because he found CDI was doing too much ;o)
> > >
> > > For me, "CDI Lite" was just basic dependency injection. The fact
> > that CDI can now run on SE (like JPA....), is good... but for me it
> > has nothing to do with Light : it's the entire thing that can
> > bootstrap in SE. Good.
> > >
> > > So what is Lite for you guys ?
> > >
> > > Antonio
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
> > <rmannibucau at gmail.com <mailto:rmannibucau at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > 2015-08-30 15:22 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <john.d.ament at gmail.com
> > <mailto: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.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 8:07 AM Antonio Goncalves
> > <antonio.goncalves at gmail.com <mailto: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) ?
> > >
> > > Antonio
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Antoine Sabot-Durand
> > <antoine at sabot-durand.net <mailto: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 ao?t 2015 ? 23:15, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms at gmail.com
> > <mailto:arjan.tijms at gmail.com>> a ?crit :
> > > On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Antonio Goncalves
> > > <antonio.goncalves at gmail.com
> > <mailto:antonio.goncalves at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > I remember talking with the JAX-RS guys (Java EE), years ago
> > (back in EE6),
> > > > 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 | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx
> > France
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cdi-dev mailing list
> > > cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> > >
> > > 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 <mailto:cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Antonio Goncalves
> > > Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
> > >
> > > Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx
> > France
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Antonio Goncalves
> > > Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
> > >
> > > Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx
> > France
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cdi-dev mailing list
> > > cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> --
> Martin Kouba
> Software Engineer
> Red Hat, Czech Republic
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>
> 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.
>
> End of cdi-dev Digest, Vol 57, Issue 43
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20150831/8b8b1b7d/attachment-0001.html
More information about the cdi-dev
mailing list