It’s a good point and one that I’ve brought up myself more than once. As you pointed out though, it’s a bit too late already and there are practical reasons (noted in my previous email) why the current state actually makes some sense.

From: Lincoln Baxter [mailto:lbaxter@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 8:09 PM
To: Reza Rahman
Cc: cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Transaction Scope for CDI

The only reason why I potentially object is because we already have several scope annotations specified in CDI itself, when these annotations really do not belong there in the first place.

There's no good reason I can think of why CDI should know what the "@RequestScope" or "@ConversationScope" is. AFAIK this was done as a convenience instead of doing work in the related specs, or as a separate deliverable of this spec.

But I won't stand in the way. We already have precedent, it's already messy, and we can't fix it now ;)

~Lincoln

---

From: "Reza Rahman" <reza_rahman@lycos.com>
To: cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 7:28:13 PM
Subject: [cdi-dev] Transaction Scope for CDI

CDI enthusiasts,

Pete, I and Nigel (JMS 2 spec lead) have been discussing the issue of the transaction scope behind the scenes the past few weeks. Attached is what we came up with and feel it meets the various related use-cases the most effectively. The downside is that it is quite involved (conceptually) and might take a bit of patience to absorb. Please give it a read and let me know your thoughts.

Cheers,

Reza

_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev