Next meeting proposed agenda
by Antoine Sabot-Durand
Hi all,
So our next meeting will be tomorrow 16:00 UTC. I propose the following agenda :
- Feedback on the AtInject++ proposal
- Discussion on the pros and cons of creating a config workshop : following the passionate ML thread on the subject
- Workshop discussion : volunteer to lead them and members
If you have other points to see, please let me know.
Antoine
9 years, 9 months
Re: [cdi-dev] Enhancement proposition to JSR 330
by Werner Keil
Antoine/all,
Thanks for sharing. I also had a discussion (in his own Spring blog) with
Jürgen mainly about modularity, and the JDK minimum requirements for Spring
4.x. He confirmed, the "core" components of Spring 4.1 still run under as
low as Java 6, while some modules that can be dynamically (Spring-DM aka
OSGi;-) added may directly refer to Java 8, in which case you must run SE 8
or higher.
So while for Java 6/7 or below version of @Inject.next this:
public interface Provider<T> extends Iterable<T> {
/**
* Provides a fully-constructed and injected instance of {@code T}.
*/
T get();
[...]
looks fine, it seemed more than consequent, if you did
public interface Provider<T> extends Iterable<T>, Supplier<T> {
[...]
in a Java 8+ case;-)
Even without looking at Lambdas here in greater detail, it reused what Java
SE 8 introduced.
Again, that is something you, Bob, Jürgen and maybe the EE 8 Spec Leads
should discuss, what the reasonable minimum requirements for @Inject.next
are, if it's SE 8 or a lower version, though those of course may always
stick with the previous ones...
Werner
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:06 PM, <cdi-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org> wrote:
> Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> cdi-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> cdi-dev-owner(a)lists.jboss.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of cdi-dev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-456) fix Bean#getBeanClass() definition
> (Romain Manni-Bucau (JIRA))
> 2. Enhancement proposition to JSR 330 (Antoine Sabot-Durand)
> 3. Re: With the end of Java Config... (Werner Keil)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 12:03:36 +0200
> From: Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net>
> Subject: [cdi-dev] Enhancement proposition to JSR 330
> To: cdi-dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Message-ID: <D8CD5D26-82DB-4F64-89C5-93AD467FBC0B(a)sabot-durand.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> I received an answer from Bob Lee (off list). He likes te idea of us
> providing a proposal document. So I worked on it this WE.
> Here it is :
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KCzqodA8uzXED5DJrEUyl0x3dOUB5mBwL4KcV...
> <
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KCzqodA8uzXED5DJrEUyl0x3dOUB5mBwL4KcV...
> >
>
> Your comments and proposal are most welcome. I propose we discuss this
> point during our next meeting, and if we agree on the final content send it
> asap to have Bob and Juergen feeling about these suggestion.
>
>
> Antoine
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20140908/607a6499/at...
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
> code under the Apache License, Version 2 (
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
> intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
>
> End of cdi-dev Digest, Vol 46, Issue 42
> ***************************************
>
9 years, 9 months
Java Config and CDI - A Minimal Outline
by Anatole Tresch
Therefore we should probably think of
- ensure we have hooks in CDI 2, where we can put the config mechanism
into to configure (control?) CDI itself.
All the rest can be done by just deploying and activating a CDI extension.
I will write a blog on that soon (it is already working here on my machine
with CDI 1.2 ;-) ).
Then we should try getting a SE JSR up and running (let us discuss that
during J1 and at the next EC meeting) to define how we define, assemble and
manage config in general. CDI then is only one of multiple possible
consumers.
-Anatole
2014-09-08 17:20 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de>:
> Antonio, the problem is that the config mechanism would need to be plain
> old java. In the best case even without classpath scanning.
> We need it during the boot time of the container (CDI and all other EE
> components boot time) so we cannot use CDI mechanics.
>
> If you look at DeltaSpike you will see that ConfigResolver just uses plain
> static methods. This is the only way we can use the config mechanism during
> boot time, e.g. to exclude classes in ProcessAnnotatedType, etc.
>
> The CDI part are only a few producers on top of it. We really need some
> common ground for configuration, but I don't think the CDI spec is the
> place where it should be handled...
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> On Monday, 8 September 2014, 15:32, Antonio Goncalves <
> antonio.goncalves(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> It's just a matter of knowing what we want to do :
>
> * Add configuration into CDI 2.0 : it goes into the spec
> * Forget about configuration : it goes nowhere
> * Give configuration a chance for later : start the brainstorming, define
> an API, make sure it works with CDI 2.0... and leave the work in the
> appendix so the Java EE 9 expert group can read it and decide if they
> should take it or not. Appendixe is just a way of saying "we've deeply
> thought about it, this is the way we think it should be done, now the
> future EG decides"
>
> Antonio
>
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> @Antonio: -1 for an appendix, bean validation is the example it is
> broken. Idea is awesome, everybody liked it so it was added -> great.
> Here everybody already agrees it is good so no need of "staging" phase
> IMHO. BV appendix was not the API used so it broke apps using it. SO
> using proprietary stuff is the same, it basically mean an appendix
> spec for something not under discussion (regarding its need) is IMHO
> useless.
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
> 2014-09-08 10:29 GMT+02:00 Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > If it's not really usable as API or annotation I don't see much value in
> > adding some "how to" or intent for the future into the Spec Document.
> >
> > If it was to become a part of CDI 2, there's nothing against optionality
> > like MEEP 8 or JSR 363 already practice on the SE/EE side either.
> >
> > Agorava/DeltaSpike demonstrate how true modularity work, similar to the
> JSRs
> > mentioned above, where you have multiple module JARs/bundles instead of a
> > big monolithic one. Some JSRs like Batch also declared separate
> "annotation"
> > modules, so that's what CDI 2 should also do if it was a feature Inside
> of
> > it.
> > Calling some features optional if they're not used by every
> implementation
> > allows them to chose. That was also the main value of keeping @Inject a
> > separate "module" under CDI. It was never included into a JDK but used
> > independently.
> >
> > The core of a Config module would ideally work in SE, but CDI 2 already
> > declared an aim to have some modules work under SE.
> >
> > Werner
> >
> > Am 08.09.2014 09:47 schrieb "Antonio Goncalves"
> > <antonio.goncalves(a)gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I really have some concerns about adding configuration into CDI but I
> can
> >> see benefits too. And what about adding it... and not adding it at the
> same
> >> time ? In Bean Validation 1.0, the Expert Group decided not to include
> >> method-level validation in the spec (it was included in 1.1). But what
> they
> >> did is to add it as a proposal in the Appendix.
> >>
> >> If we feel some configuration should get in, why not have a proposal in
> >> the Appendix of CDI 2.0 ? It could then be implemented by Weld (and
> >> OpenWebBeans if they feel like it). And then, if it's successful and
> things
> >> get easier, get its own JSR for Java EE 9.
> >>
> >> WDYT ?
> >>
> >> Antonio
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau(a)gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hmm
> >>>
> >>> I see config jsr as a jse spec which would allow EE injections in
> config
> >>> components in EE containers (exactly like jbatch).
> >>>
> >>> This way it can be used without any container or with any container
> >>> easily. Only limit will be to not do something cdi/known containers
> will not
> >>> support I think.
> >>>
> >>> Not sure EE side is needed today, a lot can already be done without it
> >>> and it can be enhanced later adding some integration words.
> >>>
> >>> Le 8 sept. 2014 00:01, "Anatole Tresch" <atsticks(a)gmail.com> a écrit :
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Romain
> >>>>
> >>>> just a few remarks inline...
> >>>>
> >>>> Summarizing
> >>>> 1) injection of values, reinjection, feedback on config changes can
> all
> >>>> be done with already existing features (producers, extensions).
> >>>> 2) configuring/bootstrapping CDI itself, e.g. configuration, is
> targeted
> >>>> with CDI 2.0 (see spec failing)
> >>>>
> >>>> So basically we could try to look if there is enough interest to
> >>>> standardize configuration in a more general way. For deployment
> aspects we
> >>>> need an EE JSR, for the rest, another SE standard may be an option as
> >>>> well... tbd...
> >>>>
> >>>> -Anatole
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2014-09-08 0:10 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> well sorry to pop in so late but here are my 2cts
> >>>>
> >>>> easy ;)
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Config JSR is more about environment config IMHO and putting it in
> CDI
> >>>>> doesn't make sense since more or more spec works without any other
> >>>>> spec - CDI in our case.
> >>>>
> >>>> CDI even with some config mechanism added would still work
> "standalone".
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This mean CDI can't be the place but should
> >>>>> just be the bridge for config JSR.
> >>>>
> >>>> As I suggested as well.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Plus CDI config will surely highly
> >>>>> be an application config first (beans.xml should be the place then)
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, app config, but beware people of writing config into beans.xml.
> >>>> That is definitively in most cases not what you want. CDI should not
> define,
> >>>> where and how config is located and formatted. CDI should provide a
> SPI,
> >>>> where config providers can publish the configured values, so it can be
> >>>> injected wherever needed. E.g. some kind of producer, that can provide
> >>>> multiple objects to be injected and can benefit from some kind of
> callback
> >>>> mechanism would be sufficient...
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> then environment config can be done at EE level (saying it has to
> >>>>> support placeholders or any pre deployment processing).
> >>>>
> >>>> Config is much more complex. There is no clear border what is
> >>>> environment config or environment dependent and what not. This
> depends on
> >>>> what kind of application you have deployed. As an example the email
> address,
> >>>> where you send error messages, can be different depenending on the
> >>>> stage/environment, but this is not EE related config entry. Also what
> an
> >>>> environment is, is not a thing that you can define completely. So I
> agree
> >>>> not to add this complexities to CDI, I would hide them between some
> kind of
> >>>> "config provider", as mentioned above. CDI does not need to know if
> the
> >>>> config provided is environment dependent or not, its just what is
> visible at
> >>>> a current runtime state...
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you put something like ProjectStage in CDI it is great but then
> you
> >>>>> have it in JSF, CDI and finally surely all specs...same as
> >>>>> converters...
> >>>>
> >>>> That was originally the idea, when doing a EE config JSR, but without
> >>>> such standard. I agree, CDI is not the place to define them.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Config should really be split in:
> >>>>> 1) spec dependent config -> spec.xml
> >>>>> 2) *common* config (a bit like javax.annotation) for environment and
> >>>>> external configuration -> Config JSR
> >>>>
> >>>> Not 100% sure, if a get the point here...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2014-09-08 0:10 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> well sorry to pop in so late but here are my 2cts
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Config JSR is more about environment config IMHO and putting it in
> CDI
> >>>>> doesn't make sense since more or more spec works without any other
> >>>>> spec - CDI in our case. This mean CDI can't be the place but should
> >>>>> just be the bridge for config JSR. Plus CDI config will surely highly
> >>>>> be an application config first (beans.xml should be the place then)
> >>>>> then environment config can be done at EE level (saying it has to
> >>>>> support placeholders or any pre deployment processing).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you put something like ProjectStage in CDI it is great but then
> you
> >>>>> have it in JSF, CDI and finally surely all specs...same as
> >>>>> converters...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Config should really be split in:
> >>>>> 1) spec dependent config -> spec.xml
> >>>>> 2) *common* config (a bit like javax.annotation) for environment and
> >>>>> external configuration -> Config JSR
> >>>>>
> >>>>> wdyt?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> >>>>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> >>>>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> >>>>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2014-09-07 23:39 GMT+02:00 Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com>:
> >>>>> > Sounds like an argument for a CDI module rather than a separate JSR
> >>>>> > then?;-)
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Anatole Tresch <
> atsticks(a)gmail.com>
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> I would not worry about CDI regarding licensing. Just the sentence
> >>>>> >> was
> >>>>> >> that Oracle does not want to have more ALv2 in addition to what is
> >>>>> >> already
> >>>>> >> there. So as long as we do things within CDI, no worries, I think.
> >>>>> >> For new
> >>>>> >> EE JSRs nevertheless this is a BIG issue and should be clarified
> by
> >>>>> >> the EC!
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> 2014-09-07 21:44 GMT+02:00 Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com>:
> >>>>> >>>
> >>>>> >>> Indeed, and with CDI 1.2 (MR) and 2.0 offering even the Spec
> under
> >>>>> >>> ALv2
> >>>>> >>> as a dual-license, this was discussed by EC Members but both JCP
> EC
> >>>>> >>> and
> >>>>> >>> Oracle Legal/PMO seems fine with it, and CDI is already an
> >>>>> >>> essential
> >>>>> >>> building block to Java EE 6/7, hence used with Glassfish, too. I
> >>>>> >>> wasn't
> >>>>> >>> involved in these discussions, but given CDI is especially
> liberal
> >>>>> >>> and fully
> >>>>> >>> accepted by JCP formalities and license policies, I don't really
> >>>>> >>> see what
> >>>>> >>> the problem wss for Anatole's JSR attempt (though I know, both
> >>>>> >>> Oracle and
> >>>>> >>> other EC Members/companies don't always prefer this kind of
> >>>>> >>> licensing...;-)
> >>>>> >>>
> >>>>> >>> Werner
> >>>>> >>>
> >>>>> >>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 9:28 PM, John D. Ament
> >>>>> >>> <john.d.ament(a)gmail.com>
> >>>>> >>> wrote:
> >>>>> >>>>
> >>>>> >>>> Ok, this mail has me more concerned than anything. Can you
> >>>>> >>>> clarify this
> >>>>> >>>> ALv2 statement? AFAIK, Weld (the CDI RI) is ALv2.
> >>>>> >>>>
> >>>>> >>>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Anatole Tresch
> >>>>> >>>> <atsticks(a)gmail.com>
> >>>>> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>> Hi All
> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>> unfortunately things seem quite complicated:
> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>> first of all, similarities with Deltaspike are basically not
> >>>>> >>>>> accidental. The concepts we developed in Credit Suisse are very
> >>>>> >>>>> similar to
> >>>>> >>>>> Deltaspike, though Deltaspike was not yet born at that time.
> >>>>> >>>>> Fortunately we
> >>>>> >>>>> ended up with a similar kind of solution.
> >>>>> >>>>> filtering still can be done. My idea is to define some kind of
> >>>>> >>>>> "configuration provider", which then is dynamically asked for
> >>>>> >>>>> configuration.
> >>>>> >>>>> How the provider is internally organized, is completely
> >>>>> >>>>> transparent to CDI.
> >>>>> >>>>> This enables to have multi-layered, complex config solutions
> work
> >>>>> >>>>> the same
> >>>>> >>>>> (from a view point of CDI) like simple programmatic test
> >>>>> >>>>> configurations
> >>>>> >>>>> during unit tests. The config provider still can support
> >>>>> >>>>> filtering and
> >>>>> >>>>> dynamic resolution as commonly used in configuration systems.
> >>>>> >>>>> Similarly the
> >>>>> >>>>> format is basically also not fixed. Of course, would a
> reference
> >>>>> >>>>> implementation provide a set of functionalities, but I would
> >>>>> >>>>> definitively
> >>>>> >>>>> not define the exact configuration mechanism as part of the CDI
> >>>>> >>>>> (or even a
> >>>>> >>>>> EE config JSR). Another reason, beside complexity and time, is
> >>>>> >>>>> the fact that
> >>>>> >>>>> different companies handle, store and manage configuration
> >>>>> >>>>> differently, so a
> >>>>> >>>>> mechanism must be flexible enough to accommodate these, without
> >>>>> >>>>> adoption
> >>>>> >>>>> rate will be low. Furthermore this flexibility also keeps doors
> >>>>> >>>>> open for use
> >>>>> >>>>> cases we do not know yet.
> >>>>> >>>>> Also we have to separate some basically two types of
> >>>>> >>>>> configuration
> >>>>> >>>>> aspects:
> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>> application config basically is injected into deployed
> >>>>> >>>>> components, but
> >>>>> >>>>> basically only can affect deployment to the extend it can be
> >>>>> >>>>> managed and
> >>>>> >>>>> injected by CDI. The basic architecture and design, how
> >>>>> >>>>> application servers
> >>>>> >>>>> to load and deploy are basically not affected. This type of
> >>>>> >>>>> configuration
> >>>>> >>>>> (mechanism) I see also as a possible addition to CDI, if we
> >>>>> >>>>> really fail to
> >>>>> >>>>> do something in another JSR. With CDI going for a more modular
> >>>>> >>>>> design, even
> >>>>> >>>>> basic configuration of CDI can be possible, given we have some
> >>>>> >>>>> kind of API,
> >>>>> >>>>> we can access during CDI initialization.
> >>>>> >>>>> On the other side deployment configuration affects directly how
> >>>>> >>>>> the
> >>>>> >>>>> application server deploys the application. Configuration here
> >>>>> >>>>> would allow
> >>>>> >>>>> to define datasources, EJBs, transactional aspects, security,
> >>>>> >>>>> persistence,
> >>>>> >>>>> war and ear configurations etc. Basically everything you do as
> of
> >>>>> >>>>> today with
> >>>>> >>>>> some kind of XML file, or annotation. Hereby enabling more
> >>>>> >>>>> flexibility into
> >>>>> >>>>> the existing descriptors is relatively easy, but as mentioned
> by
> >>>>> >>>>> Mark,
> >>>>> >>>>> constraint. Adding more flexibility raises other subtle
> problems.
> >>>>> >>>>> Imagine a
> >>>>> >>>>> application module, e.g. a war, that defines everything it
> >>>>> >>>>> requires. There
> >>>>> >>>>> is no need to configure anything more on server side (with
> spring
> >>>>> >>>>> you can do
> >>>>> >>>>> this, with Java EE unfortunately not). But this has a severe
> >>>>> >>>>> consequence, it
> >>>>> >>>>> would make the application really portable in the sense, that
> it
> >>>>> >>>>> can be
> >>>>> >>>>> moved between different app servers (vendors) without any
> change
> >>>>> >>>>> (ideally).
> >>>>> >>>>> As a result commercial profits of some vendor companies may be
> >>>>> >>>>> affected. I
> >>>>> >>>>> think this is actually one of the key points, why things are
> >>>>> >>>>> getting so
> >>>>> >>>>> complicated in that area.
> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>> Legal aspects also were discussed. One of them is a possible
> >>>>> >>>>> legal
> >>>>> >>>>> clash of ALv2 with GPL. This is the case already within
> >>>>> >>>>> Glassfish, but one
> >>>>> >>>>> of the reasons, why ALv2 was not acceptable to Oracle's legal
> >>>>> >>>>> department. At
> >>>>> >>>>> the end we decided to use a BSD model. Even dual licensing
> >>>>> >>>>> BSD/ALv2 could
> >>>>> >>>>> theoretically be an option. If you would choose ALv2, Oracle
> will
> >>>>> >>>>> not
> >>>>> >>>>> include your RI into Glassfish, which is the RI for the EE
> >>>>> >>>>> Umbrella JSR,
> >>>>> >>>>> meaning your JSR will not be included into EE8. So what should
> we
> >>>>> >>>>> do? I
> >>>>> >>>>> don't have a good answer...
> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>> So, I like to discuss configuration aspects here. Nevertheless
> if
> >>>>> >>>>> we
> >>>>> >>>>> decide to add config aspects, be aware that we might only
> >>>>> >>>>> (mainly) support
> >>>>> >>>>> application config, since everything else directly would impact
> >>>>> >>>>> other JSRs.
> >>>>> >>>>> And that is obviously quite similar to what Apache Deltaspike
> is
> >>>>> >>>>> all about
> >>>>> >>>>> ;-)
> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> >>>>> Anatole
> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>> 2014-09-07 14:46 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de>:
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Yes, the config group also was (obviously) looking at
> >>>>> >>>>>> DeltaSpikes
> >>>>> >>>>>> config mechanism as well.
> >>>>> >>>>>> There were others who wanted to go more into the 'filtering'
> >>>>> >>>>>> approach
> >>>>> >>>>>> as done on WebLogic servers (though not sure who else does
> that
> >>>>> >>>>>> as well).
> >>>>> >>>>>> You know, having all the XML configs like WEB-INF/web.xml
> >>>>> >>>>>> containing
> >>>>> >>>>>> placeholders and the real values only get placed in there at
> >>>>> >>>>>> deployment
> >>>>> >>>>>> time. I personally find this approach a bit limited from a
> >>>>> >>>>>> technical
> >>>>> >>>>>> perspective and it already didn't work out for me when using
> >>>>> >>>>>> WebLogic (what
> >>>>> >>>>>> about changing a configured value after the deployment was
> done?
> >>>>> >>>>>> What about
> >>>>> >>>>>> security? Having passwords in web.xml, unit testing, ...).
> >>>>> >>>>>> There are of course also other approaches which all might have
> >>>>> >>>>>> strong
> >>>>> >>>>>> sides and would have needed to get discussed.
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> But utterly the problem seems to have been legal reasons. We
> >>>>> >>>>>> even
> >>>>> >>>>>> offered to have Anatole/CS lead the EG and do the RI as an ASF
> >>>>> >>>>>> project with
> >>>>> >>>>>> substantial support and participation from the JBoss,
> DeltaSpike
> >>>>> >>>>>> and TomEE
> >>>>> >>>>>> communities.
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Anyway, the time will come when we will resurrect this effort.
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> LieGrue,
> >>>>> >>>>>> strub
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, 7 September 2014, 14:29, Werner Keil
> >>>>> >>>>>> <werner.keil(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Yep, it contains a simple but extendable notion of
> ProjectStage,
> >>>>> >>>>>> too;-)
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 2:19 PM, John D. Ament
> >>>>> >>>>>> <john.d.ament(a)gmail.com>
> >>>>> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Anatole,
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> I'm wondering if some of your configuration description falls
> >>>>> >>>>>> under
> >>>>> >>>>>> what was put together in DeltaSpike?
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> http://deltaspike.apache.org/configuration.html
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> John
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Anatole Tresch
> >>>>> >>>>>> <atsticks(a)gmail.com>
> >>>>> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Staging is not a question of xml or not xml (the "format" of
> >>>>> >>>>>> config).
> >>>>> >>>>>> You can do staged config also using xml, or based on a
> database
> >>>>> >>>>>> or json
> >>>>> >>>>>> config service. Staging as well as, more generally speaking,
> >>>>> >>>>>> environment
> >>>>> >>>>>> dependent config is more like to select/filter the right
> config
> >>>>> >>>>>> that targets
> >>>>> >>>>>> the current (runtime) environment. This might include stages,
> >>>>> >>>>>> but also many
> >>>>> >>>>>> other aspects are feasible and common (server, tier, ear, war,
> >>>>> >>>>>> tenant ...).
> >>>>> >>>>>> Since these aspects are per se very complex, it might be
> >>>>> >>>>>> advisable to leave
> >>>>> >>>>>> them out of any spec (even a dedicated config JSR would
> probably
> >>>>> >>>>>> not be
> >>>>> >>>>>> capable of covering these within the relatively short EE
> >>>>> >>>>>> timeframe)...
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> 2014-09-05 23:30 GMT+02:00 Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com
> >:
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Jens/all,
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> A sort of "staging" already was possible using CDI earlier,
> see
> >>>>> >>>>>> examples like this:
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16907185/multiple-cdi-configuration-pr...
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> DeltaSpike also includes type-safe staging that goes beyond
> the
> >>>>> >>>>>> primitive, hard-coded JSF enum.
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> If that works without XML, while still allowing flexible
> >>>>> >>>>>> configuration
> >>>>> >>>>>> for different stages or to add and "inject" additional stages
> >>>>> >>>>>> maybe even on
> >>>>> >>>>>> a tenant basis (for Cloud scenarios) I could see something
> like
> >>>>> >>>>>> that work
> >>>>> >>>>>> without XML. In the Multiconf project we managed to code
> >>>>> >>>>>> everything in
> >>>>> >>>>>> Python, and similar to Puppet or Chef you can configure and
> >>>>> >>>>>> deploy multiple
> >>>>> >>>>>> environments with it, Java EE, Spring or Play! several of them
> >>>>> >>>>>> are
> >>>>> >>>>>> configured this way and it requires no XML (where the
> container
> >>>>> >>>>>> needs such
> >>>>> >>>>>> files, the framework generates them;-)
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Werner
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:21 PM,
> >>>>> >>>>>> <cdi-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org>
> >>>>> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to
> >>>>> >>>>>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >>>>> >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >>>>> >>>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >>>>> >>>>>> cdi-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
> >>>>> >>>>>> cdi-dev-owner(a)lists.jboss.org
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
> >>>>> >>>>>> specific
> >>>>> >>>>>> than "Re: Contents of cdi-dev digest..."
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Today's Topics:
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> 1. Re: Tools : Google Drive vs Asciidoc and Github (Anatole
> >>>>> >>>>>> Tresch)
> >>>>> >>>>>> 2. Re: With the end of Java Config... (Anatole Tresch)
> >>>>> >>>>>> 3. [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-456) fix Bean#getBeanClass()
> definition
> >>>>> >>>>>> (Anatole Tresch (JIRA))
> >>>>> >>>>>> 4. Re: With the end of Java Config... (Jens Schumann)
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Message: 4
> >>>>> >>>>>> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 20:20:53 +0000
> >>>>> >>>>>> From: Jens Schumann <jens.schumann(a)openknowledge.de>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] With the end of Java Config...
> >>>>> >>>>>> To: Anatole Tresch <atsticks(a)gmail.com>, Antonio Goncalves
> >>>>> >>>>>> <antonio.goncalves(a)gmail.com>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Message-ID: <D02FDD99.396B9%jens.schumann(a)openknowledge.de>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> I can confirm that this approach works very well. We are
> using a
> >>>>> >>>>>> similar approach a couple of years now, and I love the
> >>>>> >>>>>> simplicity that comes
> >>>>> >>>>>> with portable extensions and @Producer methods. See our public
> >>>>> >>>>>> version here
> >>>>> >>>>>> [1] (works since early CDI 1.0 days) .
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Instead of a @Inject + Qualifier we just use the qualifier
> >>>>> >>>>>> @Property.
> >>>>> >>>>>> We support default values and type conversation for primitives
> >>>>> >>>>>> and
> >>>>> >>>>>> everything that has a string based constructor. The property
> >>>>> >>>>>> source can be
> >>>>> >>>>>> anything, from property files (default) to databases or xml
> >>>>> >>>>>> files. For
> >>>>> >>>>>> examples see tests here [2].
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Nevertheless I am not sure if this should be part of an future
> >>>>> >>>>>> CDI
> >>>>> >>>>>> spec. My concerns include the bloat argument, of course. But
> the
> >>>>> >>>>>> main reason
> >>>>> >>>>>> relates to the fact that we have almost everything in the
> >>>>> >>>>>> current CDI spec
> >>>>> >>>>>> already.
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Right now I am quite happy with an custom portable extension
> >>>>> >>>>>> that does
> >>>>> >>>>>> everything for me. At the time we implemented the extension we
> >>>>> >>>>>> realised that
> >>>>> >>>>>> the "hard part" was writing an extension that links a
> qualified
> >>>>> >>>>>> "optional
> >>>>> >>>>>> injection point" with an @Producer method while supporting
> code
> >>>>> >>>>>> based
> >>>>> >>>>>> default values. Luckily I had Arne in my team who did that
> >>>>> >>>>>> within a few
> >>>>> >>>>>> minutes.
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Because of this experience I would propose that we simplify
> >>>>> >>>>>> extension
> >>>>> >>>>>> development such that "optional injection points" may be
> linked
> >>>>> >>>>>> to @Produces
> >>>>> >>>>>> values easily. Additionally we have to solve a few more
> >>>>> >>>>>> integration issues
> >>>>> >>>>>> (e.g. read-only DB access should be available during CDI
> >>>>> >>>>>> startup).
> >>>>> >>>>>> Everything else should be provided by portable extensions
> (e.g.
> >>>>> >>>>>> via
> >>>>> >>>>>> delta-spike) and documentation/howtos at cdi-spec.org.
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Jens
> >>>>> >>>>>> [1]
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> https://github.com/openknowledge/openknowledge-cdi-extensions/tree/master...
> >>>>> >>>>>> [2]
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> https://github.com/openknowledge/openknowledge-cdi-extensions/blob/master...
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Von: Anatole Tresch
> >>>>> >>>>>> <atsticks(a)gmail.com<mailto:atsticks@gmail.com>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Datum: Friday 5 September 2014 21:22
> >>>>> >>>>>> An: Antonio Goncalves
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> <antonio.goncalves(a)gmail.com<mailto:
> antonio.goncalves(a)gmail.com>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Cc: CDI-Dev
> >>>>> >>>>>> <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org<mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] With the end of Java Config...
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> I would not like to add an XML "bloated" mechanism as part of
> >>>>> >>>>>> CDI 2.0.
> >>>>> >>>>>> Spontaneously I would propose a more CDI like things like:
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> * Adding a @Configured annotation (basically a qualifier).
> >>>>> >>>>>> This
> >>>>> >>>>>> can be in addition to @Inject and would allow to inject
> >>>>> >>>>>> "configured" values.
> >>>>> >>>>>> * Since configuration can change we may think of a (CDI)
> >>>>> >>>>>> event/reinject mechanism based on config changes. By default,
> >>>>> >>>>>> this is
> >>>>> >>>>>> switched off and we can discuss how it would be activated,
> e.g.
> >>>>> >>>>>> by an
> >>>>> >>>>>> additional flag settable with the @Configured annotation, or
> an
> >>>>> >>>>>> additional
> >>>>> >>>>>> @Observable ConfigChangeEvent (similar to the Griffon
> >>>>> >>>>>> framework), or both.
> >>>>> >>>>>> * Hereby configured values theoretically behave similar as
> >>>>> >>>>>> all
> >>>>> >>>>>> other injection points. They also can be qualified (the aspect
> >>>>> >>>>>> of scopes, I
> >>>>> >>>>>> did not yet have time to think about). The only difference is,
> >>>>> >>>>>> that they are
> >>>>> >>>>>> satisified using the configuration "system".
> >>>>> >>>>>> * The configuration "source" itself could in the extreme
> >>>>> >>>>>> simplest
> >>>>> >>>>>> way be a Provider<Map<String,String>>. The CDI spec should not
> >>>>> >>>>>> care about
> >>>>> >>>>>> how this map is provided (XML, DB, overrides, etc). This still
> >>>>> >>>>>> can be
> >>>>> >>>>>> standardized later. As long as the ConfigurationSource SPI is
> >>>>> >>>>>> defined,
> >>>>> >>>>>> companies still can hook in the logic and level of
> configuration
> >>>>> >>>>>> abstraction
> >>>>> >>>>>> they need.
> >>>>> >>>>>> * Of course, since not only Strings can be injected, we
> need
> >>>>> >>>>>> some
> >>>>> >>>>>> conversion or adapter logic as basically outlined in my blog.
> >>>>> >>>>>> Also here we
> >>>>> >>>>>> can add a simple SPI and let the details to the RI.
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Summarizing a
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> * @Configured annotation
> >>>>> >>>>>> * some kind of change event
> >>>>> >>>>>> * a ConfigurationSource extends
> Provider<MapString,String>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> * a conversion mechanism from String to T.
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> we get a full fledged configuration mechanism that leverages
> >>>>> >>>>>> CDI.
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> That would be my idea basically. WDYT? I will try to work that
> >>>>> >>>>>> out in
> >>>>> >>>>>> more details. Basically it should be implementable even with
> the
> >>>>> >>>>>> CDI
> >>>>> >>>>>> mechanism already in place with CDI 1.1.
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Best,
> >>>>> >>>>>> Anatole
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> 2014-09-05 16:08 GMT+02:00 Antonio Goncalves
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> <antonio.goncalves(a)gmail.com<mailto:
> antonio.goncalves(a)gmail.com>>:
> >>>>> >>>>>> One wise man* once said "EJB was a hype specification, we
> added
> >>>>> >>>>>> too
> >>>>> >>>>>> many things to it, it became bloated. The next hype
> >>>>> >>>>>> specifications are
> >>>>> >>>>>> JAX-RS and CDI, careful with them"
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Either we get this idea of "parts" right, or CDI will endup
> >>>>> >>>>>> being
> >>>>> >>>>>> bloated.
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Antonio
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> *David Blevin
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand
> >>>>> >>>>>> <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net<mailto:antoine@sabot-durand.net>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> You may have followed the rise and fall of the Java Config JSR
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> (
> http://javaeeconfig.blogspot.ch/2014/09/no-java-ee-configuration-for-ee8-...
> ).
> >>>>> >>>>>> Anatole in CC was leading this initiative and I proposed him
> to
> >>>>> >>>>>> join
> >>>>> >>>>>> us and explore if some part of his late-JSR could be done in
> >>>>> >>>>>> CDI.
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> I?m mainly thinking of
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-123
> >>>>> >>>>>> or
> >>>>> >>>>>> related solution. If we achieve to have a majority of specs to
> >>>>> >>>>>> integrate
> >>>>> >>>>>> with CDI, our configuration solution would therefore become a
> >>>>> >>>>>> configuration
> >>>>> >>>>>> system for all spec based on CDI 2.0.
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Antoine
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> >>>>>> cdi-dev mailing list
> >>>>> >>>>>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org<mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> >>>>> >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider
> >>>>> >>>>>> licenses
> >>>>> >>>>>> the code under the Apache License, Version 2
> >>>>> >>>>>> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all
> other
> >>>>> >>>>>> ideas
> >>>>> >>>>>> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and
> other
> >>>>> >>>>>> intellectual
> >>>>> >>>>>> property rights inherent in such information.
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> --
> >>>>> >>>>>> Antonio Goncalves
> >>>>> >>>>>> Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Web site<http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> |
> >>>>> >>>>>> Twitter<http://twitter.com/agoncal> |
> >>>>> >>>>>> LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> |
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Pluralsight<
> http://pluralsight.com/training/Authors/Details/antonio-goncalves>
> >>>>> >>>>>> | Paris JUG<http://www.parisjug.org> | Devoxx
> >>>>> >>>>>> France<http://www.devoxx.fr>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> >>>>>> cdi-dev mailing list
> >>>>> >>>>>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org<mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> >>>>> >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider
> >>>>> >>>>>> licenses
> >>>>> >>>>>> the code under the Apache License, Version 2
> >>>>> >>>>>> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all
> other
> >>>>> >>>>>> ideas
> >>>>> >>>>>> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and
> other
> >>>>> >>>>>> intellectual
> >>>>> >>>>>> property rights inherent in such information.
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> --
> >>>>> >>>>>> Anatole Tresch
> >>>>> >>>>>> Java Lead Engineer, JSR Spec Lead
> >>>>> >>>>>> Gl?rnischweg 10
> >>>>> >>>>>> CH - 8620 Wetzikon
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Switzerland, Europe Zurich, GMT+1
> >>>>> >>>>>> Twitter: @atsticks
> >>>>> >>>>>> Blogs: http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/
> >>>>> >>>>>> Google: atsticks
> >>>>> >>>>>> Mobile +41-76 344 62 79
> >>>>> >>>>>> -------------- next part --------------
> >>>>> >>>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> >>>>> >>>>>> URL:
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20140905/3d951250/at...
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> >>>>>> cdi-dev mailing list
> >>>>> >>>>>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> >>>>> >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider
> >>>>> >>>>>> licenses
> >>>>> >>>>>> the code under the Apache License, Version 2
> >>>>> >>>>>> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all
> >>>>> >>>>>> other ideas
> >>>>> >>>>>> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and
> other
> >>>>> >>>>>> intellectual
> >>>>> >>>>>> property rights inherent in such information.
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> End of cdi-dev Digest, Vol 46, Issue 20
> >>>>> >>>>>> ***************************************
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> >>>>>> cdi-dev mailing list
> >>>>> >>>>>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> >>>>> >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider
> >>>>> >>>>>> licenses
> >>>>> >>>>>> the code under the Apache License, Version 2
> >>>>> >>>>>> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all
> other
> >>>>> >>>>>> ideas
> >>>>> >>>>>> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and
> other
> >>>>> >>>>>> intellectual
> >>>>> >>>>>> property rights inherent in such information.
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> --
> >>>>> >>>>>> Anatole Tresch
> >>>>> >>>>>> Java Lead Engineer, JSR Spec Lead
> >>>>> >>>>>> Glärnischweg 10
> >>>>> >>>>>> CH - 8620 Wetzikon
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Switzerland, Europe Zurich, GMT+1
> >>>>> >>>>>> Twitter: @atsticks
> >>>>> >>>>>> Blogs: http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/
> >>>>> >>>>>> Google: atsticks
> >>>>> >>>>>> Mobile +41-76 344 62 79
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> >>>>>> cdi-dev mailing list
> >>>>> >>>>>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> >>>>> >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider
> >>>>> >>>>>> licenses
> >>>>> >>>>>> the code under the Apache License, Version 2
> >>>>> >>>>>> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all
> other
> >>>>> >>>>>> ideas
> >>>>> >>>>>> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and
> other
> >>>>> >>>>>> intellectual
> >>>>> >>>>>> property rights inherent in such information.
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> >>>>>> cdi-dev mailing list
> >>>>> >>>>>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> >>>>> >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider
> >>>>> >>>>>> licenses
> >>>>> >>>>>> the code under the Apache License, Version 2
> >>>>> >>>>>> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all
> other
> >>>>> >>>>>> ideas
> >>>>> >>>>>> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and
> other
> >>>>> >>>>>> intellectual
> >>>>> >>>>>> property rights inherent in such information.
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> >>>>>> cdi-dev mailing list
> >>>>> >>>>>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> >>>>> >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider
> >>>>> >>>>>> licenses
> >>>>> >>>>>> the code under the Apache License, Version 2
> >>>>> >>>>>> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all
> other
> >>>>> >>>>>> ideas
> >>>>> >>>>>> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and
> other
> >>>>> >>>>>> intellectual
> >>>>> >>>>>> property rights inherent in such information.
> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>> --
> >>>>> >>>>> Anatole Tresch
> >>>>> >>>>> Java Lead Engineer, JSR Spec Lead
> >>>>> >>>>> Glärnischweg 10
> >>>>> >>>>> CH - 8620 Wetzikon
> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>>>> Switzerland, Europe Zurich, GMT+1
> >>>>> >>>>> Twitter: @atsticks
> >>>>> >>>>> Blogs: http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/
> >>>>> >>>>> Google: atsticks
> >>>>> >>>>> Mobile +41-76 344 62 79
> >>>>> >>>>
> >>>>> >>>>
> >>>>> >>>
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> --
> >>>>> >> Anatole Tresch
> >>>>> >> Java Lead Engineer, JSR Spec Lead
> >>>>> >> Glärnischweg 10
> >>>>> >> CH - 8620 Wetzikon
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> Switzerland, Europe Zurich, GMT+1
> >>>>> >> Twitter: @atsticks
> >>>>> >> Blogs: http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/
> >>>>> >> Google: atsticks
> >>>>> >> Mobile +41-76 344 62 79
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > _______________________________________________
> >>>>> > cdi-dev mailing list
> >>>>> > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> >>>>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses
> >>>>> > the code
> >>>>> > under the Apache License, Version 2
> >>>>> > (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other
> >>>>> > ideas
> >>>>> > provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
> >>>>> > intellectual
> >>>>> > property rights inherent in such information.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Anatole Tresch
> >>>> Java Lead Engineer, JSR Spec Lead
> >>>> Glärnischweg 10
> >>>> CH - 8620 Wetzikon
> >>>>
> >>>> Switzerland, Europe Zurich, GMT+1
> >>>> Twitter: @atsticks
> >>>> Blogs: http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/
> >>>> Google: atsticks
> >>>> Mobile +41-76 344 62 79
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> cdi-dev mailing list
> >>> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >>>
> >>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
> >>> code under the Apache License, Version 2
> >>> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
> >>> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
> intellectual
> >>> property rights inherent in such information.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Antonio Goncalves
> >> Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
> >>
> >> Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France
>
>
>
>
> --
> Antonio Goncalves
> Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
>
> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org/> | Twitter
> <http://twitter.com/agoncal> | LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Pluralsight
> <http://pluralsight.com/training/Authors/Details/antonio-goncalves> | Paris
> JUG <http://www.parisjug.org/> | Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
> code under the Apache License, Version 2 (
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
> intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
> code under the Apache License, Version 2 (
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
> intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
>
--
*Anatole Tresch*
Java Lead Engineer, JSR Spec Lead
Glärnischweg 10
CH - 8620 Wetzikon
*Switzerland, Europe Zurich, GMT+1*
*Twitter: @atsticks*
*Blogs: **http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/
<http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/>*
*Google: atsticksMobile +41-76 344 62 79 <%2B41-76%20344%2062%2079>*
9 years, 9 months
Re: [cdi-dev] With the end of Java Config...
by Werner Keil
Jens/all,
A sort of "staging" already was possible using CDI earlier, see examples
like this:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16907185/multiple-cdi-configuration-pr...
DeltaSpike also includes type-safe staging that goes beyond the primitive,
hard-coded JSF enum.
If that works without XML, while still allowing flexible configuration for
different stages or to add and "inject" additional stages maybe even on a
tenant basis (for Cloud scenarios) I could see something like that work
without XML. In the Multiconf project we managed to code everything in
Python, and similar to Puppet or Chef you can configure and deploy multiple
environments with it, Java EE, Spring or Play! several of them are
configured this way and it requires no XML (where the container needs such
files, the framework generates them;-)
Werner
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:21 PM, <cdi-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org> wrote:
> Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> cdi-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> cdi-dev-owner(a)lists.jboss.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of cdi-dev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Tools : Google Drive vs Asciidoc and Github (Anatole Tresch)
> 2. Re: With the end of Java Config... (Anatole Tresch)
> 3. [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-456) fix Bean#getBeanClass() definition
> (Anatole Tresch (JIRA))
> 4. Re: With the end of Java Config... (Jens Schumann)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 20:20:53 +0000
> From: Jens Schumann <jens.schumann(a)openknowledge.de>
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] With the end of Java Config...
> To: Anatole Tresch <atsticks(a)gmail.com>, Antonio Goncalves
> <antonio.goncalves(a)gmail.com>
> Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Message-ID: <D02FDD99.396B9%jens.schumann(a)openknowledge.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> I can confirm that this approach works very well. We are using a similar
> approach a couple of years now, and I love the simplicity that comes with
> portable extensions and @Producer methods. See our public version here [1]
> (works since early CDI 1.0 days) .
>
> Instead of a @Inject + Qualifier we just use the qualifier @Property. We
> support default values and type conversation for primitives and everything
> that has a string based constructor. The property source can be anything,
> from property files (default) to databases or xml files. For examples see
> tests here [2].
>
> Nevertheless I am not sure if this should be part of an future CDI spec.
> My concerns include the bloat argument, of course. But the main reason
> relates to the fact that we have almost everything in the current CDI spec
> already.
>
> Right now I am quite happy with an custom portable extension that does
> everything for me. At the time we implemented the extension we realised
> that the "hard part" was writing an extension that links a qualified
> "optional injection point" with an @Producer method while supporting code
> based default values. Luckily I had Arne in my team who did that within a
> few minutes.
>
> Because of this experience I would propose that we simplify extension
> development such that "optional injection points" may be linked to
> @Produces values easily. Additionally we have to solve a few more
> integration issues (e.g. read-only DB access should be available during CDI
> startup). Everything else should be provided by portable extensions (e.g.
> via delta-spike) and documentation/howtos at cdi-spec.org.
>
> Jens
> [1]
> https://github.com/openknowledge/openknowledge-cdi-extensions/tree/master...
> [2]
> https://github.com/openknowledge/openknowledge-cdi-extensions/blob/master...
>
> Von: Anatole Tresch <atsticks(a)gmail.com<mailto:atsticks@gmail.com>>
> Datum: Friday 5 September 2014 21:22
> An: Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves(a)gmail.com<mailto:
> antonio.goncalves(a)gmail.com>>
> Cc: CDI-Dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org<mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
> Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] With the end of Java Config...
>
> Hi all,
>
> I would not like to add an XML "bloated" mechanism as part of CDI 2.0.
> Spontaneously I would propose a more CDI like things like:
>
>
> * Adding a @Configured annotation (basically a qualifier). This can be
> in addition to @Inject and would allow to inject "configured" values.
> * Since configuration can change we may think of a (CDI)
> event/reinject mechanism based on config changes. By default, this is
> switched off and we can discuss how it would be activated, e.g. by an
> additional flag settable with the @Configured annotation, or an additional
> @Observable ConfigChangeEvent (similar to the Griffon framework), or both.
> * Hereby configured values theoretically behave similar as all other
> injection points. They also can be qualified (the aspect of scopes, I did
> not yet have time to think about). The only difference is, that they are
> satisified using the configuration "system".
> * The configuration "source" itself could in the extreme simplest way
> be a Provider<Map<String,String>>. The CDI spec should not care about how
> this map is provided (XML, DB, overrides, etc). This still can be
> standardized later. As long as the ConfigurationSource SPI is defined,
> companies still can hook in the logic and level of configuration
> abstraction they need.
> * Of course, since not only Strings can be injected, we need some
> conversion or adapter logic as basically outlined in my blog. Also here we
> can add a simple SPI and let the details to the RI.
>
> Summarizing a
>
> * @Configured annotation
> * some kind of change event
> * a ConfigurationSource extends Provider<MapString,String>>
> * a conversion mechanism from String to T.
>
> we get a full fledged configuration mechanism that leverages CDI.
>
> That would be my idea basically. WDYT? I will try to work that out in more
> details. Basically it should be implementable even with the CDI mechanism
> already in place with CDI 1.1.
>
> Best,
> Anatole
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2014-09-05 16:08 GMT+02:00 Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves(a)gmail.com
> <mailto:antonio.goncalves@gmail.com>>:
> One wise man* once said "EJB was a hype specification, we added too many
> things to it, it became bloated. The next hype specifications are JAX-RS
> and CDI, careful with them"
>
> Either we get this idea of "parts" right, or CDI will endup being bloated.
>
> Antonio
>
>
> *David Blevin
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand <
> antoine(a)sabot-durand.net<mailto:antoine@sabot-durand.net>> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> You may have followed the rise and fall of the Java Config JSR (
> http://javaeeconfig.blogspot.ch/2014/09/no-java-ee-configuration-for-ee8-...
> ).
> Anatole in CC was leading this initiative and I proposed him to join us
> and explore if some part of his late-JSR could be done in CDI.
>
> I?m mainly thinking of https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-123 or related
> solution. If we achieve to have a majority of specs to integrate with CDI,
> our configuration solution would therefore become a configuration system
> for all spec based on CDI 2.0.
>
> Antoine
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org<mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
> code under the Apache License, Version 2 (
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
> intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
>
>
>
> --
> Antonio Goncalves
> Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
>
> Web site<http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> | Twitter<
> http://twitter.com/agoncal> | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal>
> | Pluralsight<
> http://pluralsight.com/training/Authors/Details/antonio-goncalves> |
> Paris JUG<http://www.parisjug.org> | Devoxx France<http://www.devoxx.fr>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org<mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
> code under the Apache License, Version 2 (
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
> intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
>
>
>
> --
> Anatole Tresch
> Java Lead Engineer, JSR Spec Lead
> Gl?rnischweg 10
> CH - 8620 Wetzikon
>
> Switzerland, Europe Zurich, GMT+1
> Twitter: @atsticks
> Blogs: http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/
> Google: atsticks
> Mobile +41-76 344 62 79
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20140905/3d951250/at...
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
> code under the Apache License, Version 2 (
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
> intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
>
> End of cdi-dev Digest, Vol 46, Issue 20
> ***************************************
>
9 years, 9 months
General rule for mailing list
by Antoine Sabot-Durand
Hi all,
With the beginning of CDI 2.0 we have a lot of exchange on the ML. That’s great and I hope it will continue like this. But to avoid confusion and loosing information, please don’t be afraid to create a new thread when you want to talk about something related to current thread. It will be easier to search in the ML and will save time for all of us.
Should you need to look for information in the ML history, you could reach a searchable archive on Nabble : http://cdi-specification-mailing-list.26218.n7.nabble.com/
Thank you
Antoine
9 years, 9 months
[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-456) fix Bean#getBeanClass() definition
by Jozef Hartinger (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-456?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ]
Jozef Hartinger commented on CDI-456:
-------------------------------------
{quote}jozef, how should that work? The 3 beans are different but have the same beanClass(). So how should this get implemented?{quote}
Look at the example again. They do not have the same bean class. If they had the same bean class then that would be a bug.
{quote}
So what? Where in this sentence does it state that the 'bean class of the bean' cannot be null? It neither does define what the 'bean class of the bean' is used for by the container.
oh fine, but this is not about Alternatives!
Show me one single line where you read that getBeanClass() must not be null for any custom bean.
This is just missing from the spec and we should clarify what should happen in this case.
{quote}
Very weird logic you are using here. {{BeanManager.fireEvent()}} does not specify that you cannot pass null, either. Yet, we can probably agree that calling {{BeanManager.fireEvent(null)}} is a stupid thing to do. Here, the spec clearly says that for a custom bean, CDI will call getBeanClass() to infer several pieces of information about the bean yet you feel that returning null is alright?
> fix Bean#getBeanClass() definition
> ----------------------------------
>
> Key: CDI-456
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-456
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Beans
> Reporter: Mark Struberg
>
> currently Bean#getBeanClass() is defined to return the class of the bean it produces but has one important exception: in case of a producer method or field it must return the class of the owner bean of this method or field.
> Imo this only causes troubles and doesn't add any benefit.
> * At the time when 'using' the Bean (create and destroy) we always ONLY need the type which is to be created.
> * At the time we create interceptors we ONLY need the type which is to be created;
> * At the time we create the normalscoping proxies we ONLY need the type which is to be created;
> In fact the only time we need the ownerBean is when scanning the methods and fields in it. And for creating we really need the owner-Bean and not it's bean-class!
> In OWB we worked around this by having our own method getReturnType() which consistently returns the type which gets created.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.1#6329)
9 years, 9 months
