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

I would be more than happy to accept rewrites here. I think the best way is for you to offer a proposal and then we discuss it here... Thanks! -- Pete Muir http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete On 13 Oct 2011, at 19:16, Rick Hightower <richardhightower(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I think CDI has changed its purpose and scope enough that some of the intro material which made total sense when CDI was forming is now missing the mark. CDI sort of evolved what was possible. The intro is still talking about the CDI you are going to build and the problem it is trying to solve. CDI 1.1, problem has been solved well, and CDI redefined what was there. Anyway... the intro material does not match the current scope and where CDI is today. I think its important because some folks will never get past the intro... :) Don't want CDI to be pigeon holed into some role it has but it is so much more than that. It is more general purpose than that. I want to table this. I can offer some rewrites.. But wanted to throw this out there. On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Pete Muir < <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > <http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/ContextsAndDependencyInjection11EarlyDraft... > http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/ContextsAndDependencyInjection11EarlyDraft... > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > <cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org&gt;cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > -- *Rick Hightower* (415) 968-9037 Profile <http://www.google.com/profiles/RichardHightower>