[cdi-dev] [PROPOSAL] further align CDI and EJB
struberg at yahoo.de
Wed Nov 11 14:47:39 EST 2015
We already do a decent amount of ‚side-by-side‘ handling in EJB and CDI. But there are still many aready where we could really move together much closer.
E.g. the CDI spec defines that @Vetoed on EJBs must get accounted by the EJB container. But what happens with ProcessAnnotatedType#veto(). This one is not defined that clearly I fear.
What if we (of course together with the EJB spec group) define that the EJB container must create the EJBs according to the effective AnnotatedType coming out after ProcessAnnotatedType? This would define that EJBs can also get modified via CDI Extensions. Some container do that already.
The benefit of explicitly writing this down would obviously be that we would allow EJB to fully utilize the power of CDI Extensions in a portable way.
Any objections, any ideas, any howtos?
Let the ideas roll ;)
More information about the cdi-dev