I think with this that there is also the risk of fragmenting the CDI XML configuration. If XML configuration does make it into the spec, and it is not 100% compatible with Seam XML, you may end up with a situations where some applications use the CDI XML and some are using Seam XML. A similar situation could result if the XML configuration in the spec does not include all the Seam XML features.

Stuart



On 08/10/2011, at 5:47 AM, Rick Hightower wrote:

I agree with you about most extensions. But XML is different. People expect XML config. Partly due to the pervasiveness of Spring et al. 

I agree the XML should look something like Seam XML.

Anyway... just my 2 cents.

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de> wrote:
Carlo, the argument is that CDI specifies portable extensions.

Thus you don't need to specify any CDI-XML itself because the Seam-XML Extension is portable on any CDI container anyway.

By giving the Hibernate example please remember how long it took to get a working JPA spec and that it is NOT hibernate which got specified. JPA is similar but not the exact same.

LieGrue,
strub



----- Original Message -----
> From: Carlo de Wolf <cdewolf@redhat.com>
> To: Stuart Douglas <stuart.w.douglas@gmail.com>
> Cc: Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>; cdi-dev <cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 7, 2011 4:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] CDI 1.1 EDR1 posted :-)
>
> On 10/07/2011 09:17 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>>  On 07/10/2011, at 6:13 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>
>>>  I basically share the sentiments Gavin posted on in.relation.to. We
> could do it but we really should be picky and don't let the oldschool (call
> it 'unsexy') EJB and EE like styled XML schema make it into the spec but
> rather build on top of the namespace->package based syntax we had in the
> original CDI draft.
>>>
>>>  BUT:
>>>
>>>  1.) we need to be aware that XML schemas are NOT that easy to change
> later! Thus if we see that we have forgotten something, then we are doomed for
> the future... And this situation is highly likely imo since getting this part
> right is not exactly easy.
>>>
>>>
>>>  2.) writing a water-safe spec for this might get pretty hard. Expect to
> add 20 more pages to our spec...
>>>
>>>
>>>  3.) There is one de-facto standard for it already, which is seam-XML.
> CODI nor any other CDI Extension project will introduce any similar stuff
> because Seam-XML is working fine and has a perfectly business friendly license.
> So I'm not sure which benefit writing it into the spec would bring. I see no
> benefit over the current situation for CDI containers nor end-users. Au
> contraire: if we hit an error in seam-xml, then it's easy to get this fixed
> centrally.
>>>
>>>  LieGrue,
>>>  strub
>>>
>>>
>>  I agree 100%. We already have a standards compliant and portable
> implementation of XML configuration, thanks to CDI portable extensions. I really
> don't see the benefit of writing this into the spec.
>>
>>  Stuart
>
> While the implementation itself adheres to the CDI extension standard,
> it in itself is not a standard.
>
> The question I have is, would users and vendors want to have CDI
> extensions themselves be standardized?
>
> I think there is value in having some CDI extensions be certified. Not
> just being a de-facto.
> (Remember how Seam and Hibernate became de-jure.)
>
> Now this should in no way be attached to the CDI spec itself. Each
> extension spec should have its independent lifecycle, so it can be
> updated or deprecated at whim.
>
> I would even say that EJB 4 would make a nice case.
> (Although calling it EJB 4 would be so wrong. ;-) )
>
> Carlo
>
>>>
>>>>  ________________________________
>>>>  From: Rick Hightower<richardhightower@gmail.com>
>>>>  To: Pete Muir<pmuir@redhat.com>
>>>>  Cc: Mark Struberg<struberg@yahoo.de>;
> cdi-dev<cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>>>  Sent: Friday, October 7, 2011 12:03 AM
>>>>  Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] CDI 1.1 EDR1 posted :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  I feel we need it too. I guess this goes without saying though.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Pete Muir<pmuir@redhat.com> 
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  I've received a lot of feedback at JavaOne that XML config is
> something people want to see in the standard. So I would like to revisit this
> question.
>>>>>  Feel free to discuss now, or I'll start with a proposal in
> a few weeks :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  On 5 Oct 2011, at 23:43, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>  Fine thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Although I see a few issues which I'd rather like to
> keep off core CDI as they are very easy to implement as portable Extensions
> (e.g. the XML config stuff CDI-123).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  We really must take care that we don't add things which
> bloats the CDI core spec with 20 pages which are hard to get right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Instead we should really focus on things which are
> fundamental basics and thus cannot be done via a portable Extension.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  LieGrue,
>>>>>>  strub
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>  From: Pete Muir<pmuir@redhat.com>
>>>>>>>  To: cdi-dev<cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>>>>>>  Cc:
>>>>>>>  Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 2:21 AM
>>>>>>>  Subject: [cdi-dev] CDI 1.1 EDR1 posted :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/ContextsAndDependencyInjection11EarlyDraftSubmitted
>>>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>  cdi-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>  cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>  https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>  cdi-dev mailing list
>>>>>  cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org
>>>>>  https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>>  Rick Hightower
>>>>  (415) 968-9037
>>>>  Profile
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  cdi-dev mailing list
>>>  cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org
>>>  https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  cdi-dev mailing list
>>  cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org
>>  https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>

_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev



--
Rick Hightower
(415) 968-9037
Profile