<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
What exactly is the static inject supposed to do? <br>
Would that be the same as c.select(MyMain.class).get().doWork()?<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/28/2015 10:11 PM, Romain
Manni-Bucau wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACLE=7OWUPzXhn7-XwPWaQm4jxm2LnkYeweEb9uuqLQMnx6rrA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.tomitribe.com" target="_blank">http://www.tomitribe.com</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com"
target="_blank">http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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(/* optional<br>
>>> map to configure vendor features */)) {<br>
>>> CDI.current().getBeanManager()....<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.jboss.weld.WeldCdiContainerProvider").newCDIContainer())<br>
>>> {<br>
>>> CDI.current().getBeanManager()....<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()) {<br>
>>> container.newInstance(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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.tomitribe.com" target="_blank">http://www.tomitribe.com</a><br>
>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com"
target="_blank">http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com</a><br>
>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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.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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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).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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://github.com/johnament/cdi/commit/2c362161e18dd521f8e83c27151ddad467a1c01c"
target="_blank">https://github.com/johnament/cdi/commit/2c362161e18dd521f8e83c27151ddad467a1c01c</a><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Let me know your thoughts.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Thanks,<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> John<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>> cdi-dev mailing list<br>
>>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org"
target="_blank">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
>>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev"
target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html"
target="_blank">http://www.apache.org/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>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> cdi-dev mailing list<br>
>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org"
target="_blank">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev"
target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html"
target="_blank">http://www.apache.org/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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>