Oh I forgot about the update scenario.
Seam-XML can already be used for various Weld, OWB and CanDI installations out there.
If we write it into the CDI-1.1 spec, then users need to wait another 2++ years for making
use of it.
So, of course we could do it - but I see no real benefit. If you name me some use cases
which are _only_ doable by adding the XML config into the spec, then please tell me.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de>
To: Rick Hightower <richardhightower(a)gmail.com>; Pete Muir
<pmuir(a)redhat.com>
Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Friday, October 7, 2011 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] CDI 1.1 EDR1 posted :-)
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
> ________________________________
> From: Rick Hightower <richardhightower(a)gmail.com>
> To: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com>
> Cc: Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de>; cdi-dev
<cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
> 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 <pmuir(a)redhat.com> 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 <pmuir(a)redhat.com>
>>>> To: cdi-dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
>>>> 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