Re: [cdi-dev] CDI 1.1 EDR1 posted :-)

I agree with you about most extensions. But XML is different. People expect XML config. Partly due to the pervasiveness of Spring et al. I agree the XML should look something like Seam XML. Anyway... just my 2 cents. On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; wrote: Carlo, the argument is that CDI specifies portable extensions. Thus you don't need to specify any CDI-XML itself because the Seam-XML Extension is portable on any CDI container anyway. By giving the Hibernate example please remember how long it took to get a working JPA spec and that it is NOT hibernate which got specified. JPA is similar but not the exact same. LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Carlo de Wolf <cdewolf(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: Stuart Douglas <stuart.w.douglas(a)gmail.com&gt; > Cc: Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de>; cdi-dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; > Sent: Friday, October 7, 2011 4:49 PM > Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] CDI 1.1 EDR1 posted :-) > > On 10/07/2011 09:17 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote: >> On 07/10/2011, at 6:13 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: >> >>> I basically share the sentiments Gavin posted on in.relation.to. We > could do it but we really should be picky and don't let the oldschool (call > it 'unsexy') EJB and EE like styled XML schema make it into the spec but > rather build on top of the namespace->package based syntax we had in the > original CDI draft. >>> >>> BUT: >>> >>> 1.) we need to be aware that XML schemas are NOT that easy to change > later! Thus if we see that we have forgotten something, then we are doomed for > the future... And this situation is highly likely imo since getting this part > right is not exactly easy. >>> >>> >>> 2.) writing a water-safe spec for this might get pretty hard. Expect to > add 20 more pages to our spec... >>> >>> >>> 3.) There is one de-facto standard for it already, which is seam-XML. > CODI nor any other CDI Extension project will introduce any similar stuff > because Seam-XML is working fine and has a perfectly business friendly license. > So I'm not sure which benefit writing it into the spec would bring. I see no > benefit over the current situation for CDI containers nor end-users. Au > contraire: if we hit an error in seam-xml, then it's easy to get this fixed > centrally. >>> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >>> >>> >> I agree 100%. We already have a standards compliant and portable > implementation of XML configuration, thanks to CDI portable extensions. I really > don't see the benefit of writing this into the spec. >> >> Stuart > > While the implementation itself adheres to the CDI extension standard, > it in itself is not a standard. > > The question I have is, would users and vendors want to have CDI > extensions themselves be standardized? > > I think there is value in having some CDI extensions be certified. Not > just being a de-facto. > (Remember how Seam and Hibernate became de-jure.) > > Now this should in no way be attached to the CDI spec itself. Each > extension spec should have its independent lifecycle, so it can be > updated or deprecated at whim. > > I would even say that EJB 4 would make a nice case. > (Although calling it EJB 4 would be so wrong. ;-) ) > > Carlo > >>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Rick Hightower&lt;richardhightower(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>> To: Pete Muir&lt;pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> Cc: Mark Struberg&lt;struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt;; > cdi-dev&lt;cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; >>>> Sent: Friday, October 7, 2011 12:03 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] CDI 1.1 EDR1 posted :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> I feel we need it too. I guess this goes without saying though. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Pete Muir&lt;pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: >>>> >>>> I've received a lot of feedback at JavaOne that XML config is > something people want to see in the standard. So I would like to revisit this > question. >>>>> Feel free to discuss now, or I'll start with a proposal in > a few weeks :-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5 Oct 2011, at 23:43, Mark Struberg wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Fine thing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Although I see a few issues which I'd rather like to > keep off core CDI as they are very easy to implement as portable Extensions > (e.g. the XML config stuff CDI-123). >>>>>> >>>>>> We really must take care that we don't add things which > bloats the CDI core spec with 20 pages which are hard to get right. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Instead we should really focus on things which are > fundamental basics and thus cannot be done via a portable Extension. >>>>>> >>>>>> LieGrue, >>>>>> strub >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>> From: Pete Muir&lt;pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>>> To: cdi-dev&lt;cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; >>>>>>> Cc: >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 2:21 AM >>>>>>> Subject: [cdi-dev] CDI 1.1 EDR1 posted :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/ContextsAndDependencyInjection11EarlyDraft... >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> cdi-dev mailing list >>>>>>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> cdi-dev mailing list >>>>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Rick Hightower >>>> (415) 968-9037 >>>> Profile >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cdi-dev mailing list >>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cdi-dev mailing list >> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev -- Rick Hightower (415) 968-9037 Profile