<p dir="ltr">Yes but not the way to get an instance. Even Unmanaged does it.</p>
<p dir="ltr">What can be awesome is to have static inject for it:</p>
<p dir="ltr">public class Runner {</p>
<p dir="ltr">@Inject<br>
private static MyMain main;</p>
<p dir="ltr">public static void main(String[] arg) {<br>
try (CDIContainer c = CDIContainer.newContainer()) {<br>
main.doWork();<br>
}<br>
}</p>
<p dir="ltr">}</p>
<p dir="ltr">And not a single additional line :).<br>
</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">Le 28 févr. 2015 19:05, "John D. Ament" <<a href="mailto:john.d.ament@gmail.com">john.d.ament@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Maybe I'm misreading, but I don't see us adding another API to do the same thing here - we're introducing new functionality.<div><br></div><div>CDIContainer/Loader on startup/shutdown of the application</div><div><br></div><div>CDI for runtime usage within the application to interact with the container.</div><div><br></div><div>John<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:40 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <<a href="mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com" target="_blank">rmannibucau@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">sure I fully agree excepted I think introducing yet another API to do<br>
the same thing is not good so super tempting to skip it and wait for<br>
feedbacks rather than introducing it eagerly.<br>
<br>
<br>
Romain Manni-Bucau<br>
@rmannibucau<br>
<a href="http://www.tomitribe.com" target="_blank">http://www.tomitribe.com</a><br>
<a href="http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com" target="_blank">http://rmannibucau.wordpress.<u></u>com</a><br>
<a href="https://github.com/rmannibucau" target="_blank">https://github.com/rmannibucau</a><br>
<br>
<br>
2015-02-27 8:05 GMT+01:00 Jozef Hartinger <<a href="mailto:jharting@redhat.com" target="_blank">jharting@redhat.com</a>>:<br>
> My point is that from the application perspective, the user obtains one<br>
> container handle for eventual shutdown (CDIContainer) and then looks up a<br>
> different container handle (CDI) that they can use for real work (lookup /<br>
> event dispatch / etc.) It would be cleaner if the container gave away a<br>
> single handle that can do all of that.<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 02/26/2015 05:42 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:<br>
><br>
> Not sure I get how a CDI instance can help.<br>
><br>
> But container.getBeanManager() sounds nice is not a shortcut for<br>
> CDI.current().getBm() otherwise it looks like duplication to me.<br>
><br>
> Can we make container not contextual - dont think so? If so it makes sense<br>
> otherwise I fear it doesnt add much.<br>
><br>
> Le 26 févr. 2015 16:19, "Jozef Hartinger" <<a href="mailto:jharting@redhat.com" target="_blank">jharting@redhat.com</a>> a écrit :<br>
>><br>
>> I like the initialize + close() combination and the try-with-resources<br>
>> usage.<br>
>> What looks weird to me is that at line one you obtain a container handle:<br>
>><br>
>> try (CDIContainer container = CDIContainer.newCDIContai...<br>
>> CDI.current().getBeanManager() ...<br>
>><br>
>> and then at line two you call a static method to perform a container<br>
>> lookup :-/<br>
>><br>
>> An API that allows you to use the container handle you already got is way<br>
>> better IMO, e.g.:<br>
>><br>
>> try (CDIContainer container = CDIContainer.newCDIContai...<br>
>> container.getBeanManager()<br>
>><br>
>> If CDIContainer.newCDIContainer() returns an CDI instance or its subclass,<br>
>> we get this easily.<br>
>><br>
>> On 02/26/2015 08:58 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi guys<br>
>>><br>
>>> why note keeping it simple?<br>
>>><br>
>>> try (CDIContainer container = CDIContainer.newCDIContainer(/<u></u>* optional<br>
>>> map to configure vendor features */)) {<br>
>>> CDI.current().getBeanManager()<u></u>....<br>
>>> }<br>
>>><br>
>>> Not sure the point having initialize() + having shutdown = close<br>
>>> really makes the API more fluent and modern IMO.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Also to be fully SE I guess provider() method would be needed even if<br>
>>> optional (SPI usage by default):<br>
>>><br>
>>> try (CDIContainer container =<br>
>>><br>
>>> CDIContainer.provider("org.<u></u>jboss.weld.<u></u>WeldCdiContainerProvider").<u></u>newCDIContainer())<br>
>>> {<br>
>>> CDI.current().getBeanManager()<u></u>....<br>
>>> }<br>
>>><br>
>>> Finally I think having a kind of getInstance shortcut could be a plus for<br>
>>> SE:<br>
>>><br>
>>> try (CDIContainer container = CDIContainer.newCDIContainer()<u></u>) {<br>
>>> container.newInstance(<u></u>MyAppRunner.class /* optional qualifiers */<br>
>>> ).run(args);<br>
>>> }<br>
>>><br>
>>> Using container to get an instance would create the instance and bind<br>
>>> it to the container lifecycle (mainly for predestroy) avoiding this<br>
>>> boilerplate code in all main which will surely only be used to launch<br>
>>> a soft.<br>
>>><br>
>>> wdyt?<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau<br>
>>> @rmannibucau<br>
>>> <a href="http://www.tomitribe.com" target="_blank">http://www.tomitribe.com</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com" target="_blank">http://rmannibucau.wordpress.<u></u>com</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://github.com/rmannibucau" target="_blank">https://github.com/rmannibucau</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> 2015-02-26 8:32 GMT+01:00 Jozef Hartinger <<a href="mailto:jharting@redhat.com" target="_blank">jharting@redhat.com</a>>:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Comments inline<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 02/25/2015 05:53 PM, John D. Ament wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Sorry Jozef, your email fell into the pits of google inbox's "smart<br>
>>>> sorting"<br>
>>>> features.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 3:18 AM Jozef Hartinger <<a href="mailto:jharting@redhat.com" target="_blank">jharting@redhat.com</a>><br>
>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Hi John, comments inline:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On 02/11/2015 06:02 PM, John D. Ament wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Jozef,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Most of what you see there is taken from the original doc, since<br>
>>>>> everyone<br>
>>>>> seemed to be in agreement. I think the map is just a safeguard in case<br>
>>>>> of<br>
>>>>> additional boot options available in some implementations (e.g. I think<br>
>>>>> OWB/OpenEJB have some options.. currently OpenEJB supports an embedded<br>
>>>>> CDI<br>
>>>>> boot mode).<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> No, I am fine with the map. What I am questioning is the type of the<br>
>>>>> map.<br>
>>>>> Usually, data structures with a similar purpose use Strings as their<br>
>>>>> keys.<br>
>>>>> This applies to ServletContext attributes, InvocationContext data,<br>
>>>>> Servlet<br>
>>>>> request/session attributes and others. I am therefore wondering whether<br>
>>>>> there is a usecase for the proposed unbound key signature or not.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I think that's more of a placeholder, I was assuming it would be<br>
>>>> Map<String,Object> once we clarify everything.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> We spoke a few times about BeanManager vs CDI. BeanManager was<br>
>>>>> preferable<br>
>>>>> since there's no easy way to get the the instance, CDI is easier to get<br>
>>>>> and<br>
>>>>> more aligned with how you would get it. Usually people expect the<br>
>>>>> BeanManager to be injected or available via JNDI, neither would be the<br>
>>>>> case<br>
>>>>> here.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> If CDI 2.0 targets Java SE then this container initialization API will<br>
>>>>> become something that ordinary application developers use to start/stop<br>
>>>>> CDI<br>
>>>>> in their applications. It therefore cannot be considered an SPI but<br>
>>>>> instead<br>
>>>>> should be something easy to use. On the other hand, BeanManager is<br>
>>>>> definitely an SPI. It is used in extension, frameworks and generally<br>
>>>>> for<br>
>>>>> integration. Not much by applications directly. Therefore, I don't see<br>
>>>>> how<br>
>>>>> the container bootstrap API and BeanManager fit together. IMO the<br>
>>>>> bootstrap<br>
>>>>> API should expose something that makes common tasks (obtaining a<br>
>>>>> contextual<br>
>>>>> reference and firing and event) easy, which the CDI class does.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Plus do not forget that BeanManager can be obtained easily using<br>
>>>>> CDI.getBeanManager().<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I'm not disagreeing. There's a few things I'd consider:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> - Is this mostly for new apps or existing? If existing, it's probably<br>
>>>> using<br>
>>>> some internal API, if new it can use whatever API we give.<br>
>>>> - I don't want to return void, we should give some kind of reference<br>
>>>> into<br>
>>>> the container when we're done booting.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Agreed, we should not be returning void.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> - CDI is a one step retrievable reference, where as BeanManager is a two<br>
>>>> step reference. With that said, BeanManager makes more sense to return<br>
>>>> here. Another thought could be we invent some new class that has both,<br>
>>>> but<br>
>>>> that's really redundant.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Why do you think BeanManager makes more sense here? Especially given the<br>
>>>> assumption that application code is going to call this init/shutdown<br>
>>>> API, I<br>
>>>> don't see BeanManager as making more sense.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Yes, this is the container start API. Sounds like you have some good<br>
>>>>> ideas for things like XML configuration or programmatic configuration,<br>
>>>>> both<br>
>>>>> of which are being tracked under separate tickets. One idea might be<br>
>>>>> for an<br>
>>>>> optional param in the map to control packages to scan/ignore, in that<br>
>>>>> map.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I am wondering whether this configuration should be something optional<br>
>>>>> built on top of the bootstrap API or whether we should consider making<br>
>>>>> it<br>
>>>>> mandatory. Either way, we cannot add the bootstrap API to the spec<br>
>>>>> without<br>
>>>>> explicitly defining how it behaves. My implicit assumption of the<br>
>>>>> proposal<br>
>>>>> is that the container is supposed to scan the entire classpath for<br>
>>>>> explicit<br>
>>>>> or implicit bean archives (including e.g. rt.jar), discover beans, fire<br>
>>>>> extensions, etc. This worries me as this default behavior is far from<br>
>>>>> being<br>
>>>>> lightweight, which CDI for Java SE initially aimed to be.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Yes, the spec must be updated to reflect the behavior of SE mode. I<br>
>>>> plan to<br>
>>>> get that completely into the google doc before opening any spec changes<br>
>>>> in a<br>
>>>> PR.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> We didn't want to over load the CDI interface. It already does a lot.<br>
>>>>> This is really SPI code, CDI even though it's in the spi package is<br>
>>>>> used in<br>
>>>>> a lot of application code.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I would personally prefer to have it all in one place. Having<br>
>>>>> CDIContainer, CDIContainerLoader, CDI and CDIProvider makes it more<br>
>>>>> difficult to know when to use what.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> The problem is that most CDI (the interface) operations are against a<br>
>>>> running container. I think we spoke about leveraging CDIProvider at one<br>
>>>> point (in fact, I mistakenly called CDIContainer CDIProvider not even<br>
>>>> realizing it was there). I doubt that most app developers use it<br>
>>>> currently,<br>
>>>> there's not even a way to get a reference to it that I'm aware of. It's<br>
>>>> used by the implementor only.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I don't think there's a conflict. CDI class would still only provide<br>
>>>> methods<br>
>>>> to be run against a running container. The difference is that there<br>
>>>> would be<br>
>>>> additional static methods to get this running container (CDI class) to<br>
>>>> you<br>
>>>> by starting the container.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Either way, I agree that reusing CDIProvider is a must. There is no<br>
>>>> reason<br>
>>>> to define a new class for the same purpose.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I expect that my changes in the CDI spec around this will state, along<br>
>>>> the<br>
>>>> lines of:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> To retrieve a CDIContainer to launch, do this:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> CDIContainer container = CDIContainerLocator.<u></u>getCDIContainer();<br>
>>>> container.initialize();<br>
>>>> ... do work<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Once you want to shutdown the container, do this:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> container.shutdown();<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> (we may want to consider implementing AutoCloseable, an oversight on my<br>
>>>> part)<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> and then later on<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> - What happens if I call CDIContainerLocator in an app server<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> - It throws an IllegalStateException.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> - The container provides no beans of type CDIContainer, it is managed<br>
>>>> outside of the CDI container.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> John<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Wed Feb 11 2015 at 4:21:50 AM Jozef Hartinger <<a href="mailto:jharting@redhat.com" target="_blank">jharting@redhat.com</a>><br>
>>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Hi John, some thoughts:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> - instead of using BeanManager it makes more sense to me to return a<br>
>>>>>> CDI<br>
>>>>>> instance, which is a more user-friendly API (and it also exposes<br>
>>>>>> access to<br>
>>>>>> BeanManager)<br>
>>>>>> - is there a usecase for arbitrary keys of the "params" map or is<br>
>>>>>> Map<String, ?> sufficient?<br>
>>>>>> - if we could move the shutdown() method from CDIContainer to the<br>
>>>>>> actual<br>
>>>>>> container handle that we obtain from initialize(), that would look<br>
>>>>>> more<br>
>>>>>> object-oriented<br>
>>>>>> - what exactly is initialize() supposed to do? Is it supposed to start<br>
>>>>>> scanning the entire classpath for CDI beans? That could be a problem<br>
>>>>>> especially with spring-boot-like fat jars. I think we need an API to<br>
>>>>>> tell<br>
>>>>>> the container which classes / packages to consider. Something like<br>
>>>>>> Guice's<br>
>>>>>> binding API perhaps?<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> - the proposal makes me wonder whether retrofitting this functionality<br>
>>>>>> to<br>
>>>>>> the CDI class wouldn't be a better option. It could look like:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> CDI container = CDI.initialize();<br>
>>>>>> container.select(Foo.class).<u></u>get();<br>
>>>>>> container.shutdown();<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> compare it to:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> CDIContainer container = CDIContainerLoader. getCDIContainer();<br>
>>>>>> BeanManager manager = container.initialize();<br>
>>>>>> manager.getBeans(...);<br>
>>>>>> container.shutdown(manager);<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On 02/10/2015 06:58 PM, John D. Ament wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> All,<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> I have the updated API here, and wanted to solicit any final feedback<br>
>>>>>> before updating the google doc and spec pages.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> <a href="https://github.com/johnament/cdi/commit/2c362161e18dd521f8e83c27151ddad467a1c01c" target="_blank">https://github.com/johnament/<u></u>cdi/commit/<u></u>2c362161e18dd521f8e83c27151dda<u></u>d467a1c01c</a><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Let me know your thoughts.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Thanks,<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> John<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> ______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
>>>>>> cdi-dev mailing list<br>
>>>>>> <a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
>>>>>> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev</a><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses<br>
>>>>>> the<br>
>>>>>> code under the Apache License, Version 2<br>
>>>>>> (<a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html" target="_blank">http://www.apache.org/<u></u>licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html</a>). For all other ideas<br>
>>>>>> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other<br>
>>>>>> intellectual<br>
>>>>>> property rights inherent in such information.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> ______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
>>>> cdi-dev mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
>>>> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the<br>
>>>> code<br>
>>>> under the Apache License, Version 2<br>
>>>> (<a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html" target="_blank">http://www.apache.org/<u></u>licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html</a>). For all other ideas<br>
>>>> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other<br>
>>>> intellectual<br>
>>>> property rights inherent in such information.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div>