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 ?AntonioOn Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:2015-08-30 15:22 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <john.d.ament@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.JohnOn Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 8:07 AM Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves@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) ?AntonioOn Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine@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@gmail.com> a écrit :On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Antonio Goncalves
<antonio.goncalves@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@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@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