@John, I'm not mentioning any runtime here.

In Java EE, the "fatter" JSR 330 will get executed in a Java EE container, as usual, no need extra runtime. On the other end, when I use WidlFly Swarm to build some tiny services and I need basic injection, I need the full CDI. What I'm saying is, with a fatter 330, Java SE will have basic injection, but also Java EE. I know modularity is not in the EE roadmap for now, but it will be. When it's the case, you will be able to say "I want a Java EE app with basic injection" (and you will only get the 330 module) or "I want the full thing" (and will get CDI, which depends on the fatter 330)

Antonio

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:22 PM, John D. Ament <john.d.ament@gmail.com> wrote:

Personally, I'm not in favor of a slimmed down runtime. It was tried with EJB, but never implemented properly (most implementations that support EJB-lite actually support the entire thing, except for deprecated stuff).

I think if we define SE properly we won't have a need for this.

John

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 8:07 AM Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves@gmail.com> wrote:
@Antoine, so which content do you see in CDI Lite ? Are you sure about events ?

I'm in favor of a "fatter" 330 that would have :
@Inject : already there
@Qualifier : already there
Producers and disposers
Programatic lookup
Java SE Bootstrap
When you say "The goal here is not to propose a new EE profile but a subspec", 330 could already be seen as a subspec. If you put events apparts, what would be missing in this list in your point of view ? And what obstacles do you see in archieving this ?

To boostrap CDI we have a CDIProvider, why not having an InjectionProvider just to bootstrap 330 (then, CDIProvider could extend InjectionProvider, so it bootstraps the all thing) ?

Antonio

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine@sabot-durand.net> wrote:
Yes Arjan, I think it's the first reason. We really should work with them to understand what should be added to CDI 2.0 to have it as a first citizen DI in their spec.

Le sam. 29 août 2015 à 23:15, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@gmail.com> a écrit :
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Antonio Goncalves
<antonio.goncalves@gmail.com> wrote:
> I remember talking with the JAX-RS guys (Java EE), years ago (back in EE6),
> and their answer for not adopting CDI was "too heavy".

I can't find an exact reference anymore, but I somewhat remember that
one of the reasons was also simply that CDI as a general solution
finished late in Java EE 6, while JAX-RS finished earlier and had all
the work for their own DI solution already done.

--
Antonio Goncalves
Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author

Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France

_______________________________________________
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.