[cdi-dev] bean archives

Jozef Hartinger jharting at redhat.com
Tue May 5 07:39:30 EDT 2015

On 05/05/2015 11:38 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Or section 12.
> Both ways are perfectly backward incompatible. If you drop BDA in section 5 then you break EE modularity and compatibility to EE6 servers (incuding RI). If you drop BDA in section 12 then you break scanning.
They are not incompatible. The only problem with Chapter 5 is that the 
way it is written gives some room for a wrong interpretation that is 
seemingly inconsistent with Chapter 12. The only open issue here 
therefore is how to rephrase the chapter to make it easier to read 
correctly the first time.
> We really need to handle this carefully.
> Imo we should finally accept that there are 2 different ‚BDA‘ use cases and they both need a different Term. What about using the term BDA for section 12 and only for scanning.
There is a behavior defined in the spec, implemented in the EE7 RI (and 
all other compliant implementations) and tested in the TCK. We are not 
going to redefine the behavior. What we should do is to update the spec 
wording to be more easily understood.
>   And the term ‚EE module‘ for section 5 (visibility) + interceptors, alternatives and decorators. That is basically how the EE6 RI behaved and what is the best for users.
Wrong. The EE6 RI implements bean archive isolation correctly (I just 
>   It also allows for_much_  better performance! And also please acknowledge the Alternatives-per-JAR is a major PITA in_real_  projects.

More information about the cdi-dev mailing list