[cdi-dev] New version for CDI bootstrap

[John D. Ament]

If your'e using container builder, I would call it "container" instead of
CDISE.  Even if we switch to initializer or configurator, this should
become the container class.

I'm in favor of this being its own spec jar, and really anything that is SE
specific going there.  If we end up with something that is web specific, we
should consider moving that out as well.

All other issues I see are commented in the PR.  Looks like we're really
close.

I'm not going to be able to attend tomorrows meeting, unfortunately, but
still wanted to see if we could coordinate a real time chat around CDI-30.

John

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:48 AM Antoine Sabot-Durand <
antoine at sabot-durand.net> wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> I posted modification on PR 290 [1] according to last meeting.
>
> I still have 2 points that stays open for me (you may have more) :
>
> - Place and name of the package: should we decide to package SE support in
> a specific jar, it will be probably better to have a better package name at
> a higher level
>
> - Name for CDISE class. Perhaps using Container or SeContainer  would be
> better. WDYT ?
>
> Antoine
>
> [1] https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/290
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20160620/1ca7c380/attachment.html