Re: [cdi-dev] New version for CDI bootstrap
If your'e using container builder, I would call it "container" instead of
CDISE. Even if we switch to initializer or configurator, this should
become the container class.
I'm in favor of this being its own spec jar, and really anything that is SE
specific going there. If we end up with something that is web specific, we
should consider moving that out as well.
All other issues I see are commented in the PR. Looks like we're really
close.
I'm not going to be able to attend tomorrows meeting, unfortunately, but
still wanted to see if we could coordinate a real time chat around CDI-30.
John
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:48 AM Antoine Sabot-Durand <
antoine(a)sabot-durand.net> wrote:
Hi guys,
I posted modification on PR 290 [1] according to last meeting.
I still have 2 points that stays open for me (you may have more) :
- Place and name of the package: should we decide to package SE support in
a specific jar, it will be probably better to have a better package name at
a higher level
- Name for CDISE class. Perhaps using Container or SeContainer would be
better. WDYT ?
Antoine
[1] https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/290
_______________________________________________
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.
Attachments:
- attachment.html (text/html — 2.4 KB)