> 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