On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 08:47, Pete Muir <email@example.com> wrote:
This API offers quite a different view onto CDI than BeanManager, and from 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 suggestions?
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).
Dan AllenPrincipal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597