Werner
Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to
cdi-dev@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@lists.jboss.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
cdi-dev-owner@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: Spliting SE package in an independent jar (Werner Keil)
2. Team mentions on github (Martin Kouba)
3. [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-625) When exactly are events with
@Initialized(X.class) and @Destroyed(X.class) qualifiers fired
(Martin Kouba (JIRA))
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:29:39 +0200
From: Werner Keil <werner.keil@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Spliting SE package in an independent jar
To: John Ament <john.ament@spartasystems.com>
Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>
Message-ID:
<CAAGawe1UavyR9qv0iOLCBHpXpuVzMcrBfDL_-bcu2deA9MZNGQ@mail. >gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Meaning SE API adds stuff to what EE already needs not sub-setting it, so
you end up with more interfaces on SE than EE.
If the additional SE JAR is simply for bootstrapping on SE, that's
understandable, but it does not meet the idea of
>5. Define a lightweight container, which takes the annotations specified
by the @Inject specification, defines the behaviour of the container (which
@Inject failed to do), and adds a couple of popular features from CDI such
as producer >methods. This will allow much wider adoption of CDI in the
Java world, and provide a great stepping stone between Java SE, a servlet
container, OSGi and a full Java EE server.
from the proposal.
Was that found out of scope or not doable in CDI 2?
Having 2 JARs where EE only nees one is not what I would consider
"lightweight".
Werner
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:23 PM, John Ament <john.ament@spartasystems.com>
wrote:
> Thats why cdi-se-api depends on cdi-api.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Werner Keil <werner.keil@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2016 6:37 AM
> *To:* John Ament
> *Cc:* cdi-dev
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cdi-dev] Spliting SE package in an independent jar
>
> Yes, but on SE you can't just use the "cdi-se-api" on its own.
>
> So SE on the API level needs 2 JARs not just one. That's what I mean.
> I trust the sum of all JARs for an implementation would be somewhat
> smaller on SE, otherwise the "Micro" idea of using a self-executable or
> "Fat" JAR in those places would be ad-absurdum, if you end up with a "Fat
> JAR" that's bigger than most existing app servers;-)
>
> I would have expected a
> core-api
> se-api
> ee-api
>
> kind of setup, but if it won't blow implementations on the SE side, I also
> understand that.
>
> Werner
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:19 PM, John Ament <john.ament@spartasystems.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Opposite Werner, EE API is larger and has the bulk of the content. SE
>> API at this point has two classes.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org <cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org >
>> on behalf of Werner Keil <werner.keil@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2016 5:27 AM
>> *To:* cdi-dev
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [cdi-dev] Spliting SE package in an independent jar
>>
>> So cdi-se-api is larger than the (core) EE API?
>>
>> An SE implementation should hopefully have a smaller footprint than
>> current EE ones (e.g. Weld)?
>>
>> Werner
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:09 AM, <cdi-dev-request@lists.jboss.org >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to
>>> cdi-dev@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@lists.jboss.org
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> cdi-dev-owner@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: Spliting SE package in an independent jar (Martin Kouba)
>>> 2. [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-45) Optional Injection Points
>>> (Martin Kouba (JIRA))
>>> 3. [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-638) Introduce a new xsd for CDI 2.0
>>> (Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA))
>>> 4. [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-638) Introduce a new xsd for CDI 2.0
>>> (Antoine Sabot-Durand (JIRA))
>>> 5. No meeting tomorrow (Antoine Sabot-Durand)
>>> 6. Re: Spliting SE package in an independent jar (Emily Jiang)
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 09:56:24 +0200
>>> From: Martin Kouba <mkouba@redhat.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Spliting SE package in an independent jar
>>> To: John Ament <john.ament@spartasystems.com>, Antoine Sabot-Durand
>>> <antoine@sabot-durand.net>, cdi-dev <cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org
>>> >
>>> Message-ID: <616fdc4e-26f6-a8d7-16d3-fdceb71faa1f@redhat.com >
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>>>
>>> +1 for John's proposal.
>>>
>>> So there will be two API artifacts:
>>> * cdi-api
>>> * cdi-se-api (depends on cdi-api)
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> Dne 12.10.2016 v 12:40 John Ament napsal(a):
>>> > the way I've envisioned it:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > - There is no dedicated EE API (none that I could find that is EE only,
>>> > except for perhaps session scoped)t
>>> >
>>> > - There is SE specific API and the current API could be considered
>>> "core"
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Take the current API module and create two submodules, one for core and
>>> > one for SE. SE depends on core. EE still refers to core as the same
>>> > existing coordinates (create new coordinates for the parent).
>>> >
>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ------------
>>> > *From:* cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org
>>> > <cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org > on behalf of Antoine Sabot-Durand
>>> > <antoine@sabot-durand.net>
>>> > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 12, 2016 5:18 AM
>>> > *To:* cdi-dev
>>> > *Subject:* [cdi-dev] Spliting SE package in an independent jar
>>> >
>>> > to avoid including CDI SE features in Java EE, we already talk about
>>> > creating a specific SE jar.
>>> >
>>> > Any thought on this approach?
>>> >
>>> > Antoine
>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ------------
>>> > NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments may contain
>>> > confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged information which should
>>> be
>>> > treated accordingly. If you are not the intended recipient, please
>>> > notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this message,
>>> and
>>> > destroy all physical and electronic copies. Thank you.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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.
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> Martin Kouba
>>> Software Engineer
>>> Red Hat, Czech Republic
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/license
>>> s/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 71, Issue 29
>>> ***************************************
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential,
>> proprietary, and/or privileged information which should be treated
>> accordingly. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
>> sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this message, and destroy all
>> physical and electronic copies. Thank you.
>>
>
> ------------------------------
> NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential,
> proprietary, and/or privileged information which should be treated
> accordingly. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
> sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this message, and destroy all
> physical and electronic copies. Thank you.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/ 20161018/2a46a64a/attachment- 0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:13:38 +0200
From: Martin Kouba <mkouba@redhat.com>
Subject: [cdi-dev] Team mentions on github
To: cdi-dev <cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>
Message-ID: <0ab85968-f073-9cec-7a31-c84c4c540d42@redhat.com >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2; format=flowed
Dear EG,
I've just found a github feature called "team mentions" [1]. It allows
to reference (send notifications to) every member of a team. The syntax
is: @orgname/teamname.
In cdi-spec organization there is a team called EG [2]. Sometimes it
might be useful to reference this team e.g. when a PR is changed/needs
review of EG.
I've added several active members and invited few others. Feel free to
accept/reject invitation or send request to join the team.
To reference the EG team in comments/issues: @cdi-spec/eg
Thanks,
Martin
[1]
https://guides.github.com/features/issues/#mentions
[2]
https://github.com/orgs/cdi-spec/teams/eg
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 04:22:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Martin Kouba (JIRA)" <issues@jboss.org>
Subject: [cdi-dev] [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-625) When exactly are events with
@Initialized(X.class) and @Destroyed(X.class) qualifiers fired
To: cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org
Message-ID:
<JIRA.12644548.1472028968000.16322.1476865320549@Atlassian. JIRA>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-625?page=com. ]atlassian.jira.plugin.system. issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
Martin Kouba reassigned CDI-625:
--------------------------------
Assignee: Martin Kouba
> When exactly are events with @Initialized(X.class) and @Destroyed(X.class) qualifiers fired
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ -
>
> Key: CDI-625
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-625
> Project: CDI Specification Issues
> Issue Type: Clarification
> Components: Events
> Reporter: Martin Kouba
> Assignee: Martin Kouba
> Labels: F2F2016
> Fix For: 2.0 .Final
>
>
> The spec states that {{@Initialized(X.class)}} is fired when a context is initialized and {{@Destroyed(X.class)}} when a context is destroyed (note that for {{@ApplicationScoped}} the wording leaves out the context: _"when the application is destroyed"_).
> Does it mean that:
> * {{@Initialized(X.class)}} is fired *after the initialization* of a context is finished, i.e. the context is ready?
> * {{@Destroyed(X.class)}} is fired *after the destruction* of a context is finished, i.e. after all the beans are destroyed?
> I'm asking because for {{@Destroyed(X.class)}} it might be useful to perform some cleanup before the context is actually destroyed - see also CDI-601.
> In RI/Weld, the behaivour of {{@Destroyed(ApplicationScoped.class)}} is currently a little bit inconsistent. For webapps and Weld SE, the event is fired before the context is destroyed. But for non-web EE modules (e.g. ejb jar) the event is fired after the context is destroyed.
> I believe this should be more clear.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.11#64026)
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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.
End of cdi-dev Digest, Vol 71, Issue 32
***************************************