On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 08:47, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> wrote:
This API offers quite a different view onto CDI than BeanManager, and
the comments we've received on CDI 1.0  I believe it is an API that
people are going to find more useful, leaving BeanManager for more "power"
use cases. This was my reason to split it out, but I'm open to other
That's the other benefit. It puts BeanManager back where it belongs, which
is a low-level API. Before we call CDI 1.1 final, I hope we can survey the
popular uses of BeanManager and see if any of those are similar to this case
where a better API could be provided to avoid the need for BeanManager to be
overly used. (It's possible this could knock out 80-90% of the cases).
Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597