I don't see Events in a "Lite" version because the other DI frameworks
don't use them. A "fatter" 330 with producers, programmatic lookup and
bootstrap, could be "easily" implemented by Spring, Guice... If we leave
events in a Lite version, then it won't be the case, and Weld and OWB will
be the only two implementations.
For me, a Lite version would just be about DI. If Weld uses events
internally to archieve basic DI, well, it's just an implementation
decision, not a spec. I would not even try to standardize the way @Inject
works (like Romain said, @Inject doesn't work the same in Weld or Spring),
let's leave it like this. If you take back Antoine sentence "*This would
allow using CDI in constrained environment like mobile or embedded devices*",
then I don't think events would fit here.
Antonio
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de> wrote:
> For me, a Light version of CDI is clearly the features number.
That's
why I don't see events in it.
We did discuss this last year on the f2f meeting. The problem lies within
our Extension mechanism. Without events you also need to drop the Extension
mechanism. And to be honest, this is THE major hit in all CDI…
Sorry to be the bad guy busting all those ideas. I really don’t want to,
but better now than too late down the road ;)
It’s really tricky as many features are heavily based on each other. E.g.
by removing scanning you could get rid of javassist/asm/etc ? nope, we also
have our class proxies which need bytecode tinkering. So remove
interceptors and decorators too? Well yea, but we still have normalscoping
-> what is left? basically spring prototype and singleton. Hmm. that’s not
that much compared to full CDI. And all that for only 200kByte?
(Btw we also discussed generating the bytecode classes at build time, but
then we still miss the dynamics we get from Extensions, e.g. PAT adding an
interceptor annotation)
Just to give you a rough idea how this all works together when it comes to
implementation details…
Please feel free to ask Jozef and me for further infos on ‚dependencies‘.
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 30.08.2015 um 18:09 schrieb Antonio Goncalves <
antonio.goncalves(a)gmail.com>:
>
> For me, a Light version of CDI is clearly the features number. That's
why I don't see events in it.
>
> For me, a CDI Lite would just focus on DI. If CDI has @Produces and
Spring has @Bean, then it's because 330 lakes this functionality.
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
rmannibucau(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Lite can have several definition, let's try to list them up if it can
help:
>
> - binary size: for me until 3M for an app it is "Lite"
> - features number: the whole IoC set of feature is light since you
almost always need it, it means you can do lighter but it wouldnt be used -
check spring, who uses only spring-ioc and not context or more?
> - features complexity: sure we are not light here but supporting scopes
already breaks "Lite-ness" IMO so not a real issue
>
> So my view is CDI "SE" is light enough - as a spec and spec can't
affect
implementations so seems the fight is not on the right side to me.
>
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber
>
> 2015-08-30 15:57 GMT+02:00 Antonio Goncalves <
antonio.goncalves(a)gmail.com>:
> It's funny, I feel I'm in Rod Johnson shoes back in Java EE 6 where he
forked 330 because he found CDI was doing too much ;o)
>
> For me, "CDI Lite" was just basic dependency injection. The fact that
CDI can now run on SE (like JPA....), is good... but for me it has nothing
to do with Light : it's the entire thing that can bootstrap in SE. Good.
>
> So what is Lite for you guys ?
>
> Antonio
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
rmannibucau(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 2015-08-30 15:22 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <john.d.ament(a)gmail.com>:
> 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).
>
>
> +1, most of CDI is basic and quickly any light version will miss events
or other thing - in particular in maintaining micro services from
experience. Size of an implementation can easily be < 1M so not sure it
would bring anything. Only important point is what Antoine started to do ie
ensuring EE and SE parts are clearly identified and split in the spec.
>
> 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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com> a
écrit :
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Antonio Goncalves
> <antonio.goncalves(a)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(a)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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)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.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Antonio Goncalves
> Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
>
> Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France
>
>
>
>
> --
> Antonio Goncalves
> Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
>
> Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)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.
--
Antonio Goncalves
Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
Web site <