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@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@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@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.  

John

On 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) ?

Antonio

On 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

--

Antonio Goncalves
Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author

Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France