No, I am fine with the map. What I am questioning is the type of the map. Usually, data structures with a similar purpose use Strings as their keys. This applies to ServletContext attributes, InvocationContext data, Servlet request/session attributes and others. I am therefore wondering whether there is a usecase for the proposed unbound key signature or not.Jozef,
Most of what you see there is taken from the original doc, since everyone seemed to be in agreement. I think the map is just a safeguard in case of additional boot options available in some implementations (e.g. I think OWB/OpenEJB have some options.. currently OpenEJB supports an embedded CDI boot mode).
If CDI 2.0 targets Java SE then this container initialization API will become something that ordinary application developers use to start/stop CDI in their applications. It therefore cannot be considered an SPI but instead should be something easy to use. On the other hand, BeanManager is definitely an SPI. It is used in extension, frameworks and generally for integration. Not much by applications directly. Therefore, I don't see how the container bootstrap API and BeanManager fit together. IMO the bootstrap API should expose something that makes common tasks (obtaining a contextual reference and firing and event) easy, which the CDI class does.
We spoke a few times about BeanManager vs CDI. BeanManager was preferable since there's no easy way to get the the instance, CDI is easier to get and more aligned with how you would get it. Usually people expect the BeanManager to be injected or available via JNDI, neither would be the case here.
I am wondering whether this configuration should be something optional built on top of the bootstrap API or whether we should consider making it mandatory. Either way, we cannot add the bootstrap API to the spec without explicitly defining how it behaves. My implicit assumption of the proposal is that the container is supposed to scan the entire classpath for explicit or implicit bean archives (including e.g. rt.jar), discover beans, fire extensions, etc. This worries me as this default behavior is far from being lightweight, which CDI for Java SE initially aimed to be.
Yes, this is the container start API. Sounds like you have some good ideas for things like XML configuration or programmatic configuration, both of which are being tracked under separate tickets. One idea might be for an optional param in the map to control packages to scan/ignore, in that map.
I would personally prefer to have it all in one place. Having CDIContainer, CDIContainerLoader, CDI and CDIProvider makes it more difficult to know when to use what.
We didn't want to over load the CDI interface. It already does a lot. This is really SPI code, CDI even though it's in the spi package is used in a lot of application code.
John
On Wed Feb 11 2015 at 4:21:50 AM Jozef Hartinger <jharting@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi John, some thoughts:
- instead of using BeanManager it makes more sense to me to return a CDI instance, which is a more user-friendly API (and it also exposes access to BeanManager)
- is there a usecase for arbitrary keys of the "params" map or is Map<String, ?> sufficient?
- if we could move the shutdown() method from CDIContainer to the actual container handle that we obtain from initialize(), that would look more object-oriented
- what exactly is initialize() supposed to do? Is it supposed to start scanning the entire classpath for CDI beans? That could be a problem especially with spring-boot-like fat jars. I think we need an API to tell the container which classes / packages to consider. Something like Guice's binding API perhaps?
- the proposal makes me wonder whether retrofitting this functionality to the CDI class wouldn't be a better option. It could look like:
CDI container = CDI.initialize();
container.select(Foo.class).get();
container.shutdown();
compare it to:
CDIContainer container = CDIContainerLoader. getCDIContainer();
BeanManager manager = container.initialize();
manager.getBeans(...);
container.shutdown(manager);
On 02/10/2015 06:58 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
All,
I have the updated API here, and wanted to solicit any final feedback before updating the google doc and spec pages.
Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks,
John
_______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list 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.