[cdi-dev] [PROPOSAL] further align CDI and EJB

[Tomas Remes]

I think nothing will happen in EJB spec so I would not really rely on some future collaboration. Another case is this classpath scanning and AnnotatedType/PAT stuff. This sounds to me like quite interesting idea at least at first glance.:) But the question is: Isn't it late to propose any new JSR for upcoming EE 8? I guess it is so this seems to me bit out of scope for CDI 2.x... maybe CDI 3?:)

Tom 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sven Linstaedt" <sven.linstaedt at gmail.com>
To: "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rmannibucau at gmail.com>
Cc: "cdi-dev" <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:45:22 AM
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] [PROPOSAL] further align CDI and EJB

+1 for splitting the classpath scanning and all AnnotatedXXX / ProcessAnnotatedType type parsing/overriding from the CDI in an own spec, so other specs (not only EJB) may rely on it. 

2015-11-11 20:54 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < rmannibucau at gmail.com > : 



Hi Mark, 

few points on that topic: 

- let the EJB container reuse AnnotatedType (ie even add @Stateless through an Extension): +1 
- veto an EJB as a whole and not only in CDI side - ie @Schedule is ignored on EJB side of thing: I'm quite mitigated. Looks tempting but it would break the compatibility with extsing apps I fear since veto is 100% a CDI thing today. 



Romain Manni-Bucau 
@rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber 

2015-11-11 11:47 GMT-08:00 Mark Struberg < struberg at yahoo.de > : 


Hi! 

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 ;) 

LieGrue, 
strub 
_______________________________________________ 
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. 


_______________________________________________
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.

-- 
Tomas Remes