[cdi-dev] LJC comments/questions

Hi All, My name is Luigi Bitonti and I am a member of the London Java Community (LJC). We are interested in the CDI 1.1 specification and would like to help by contributing our point of view as developers. We are also keen to help with any tasks you feel like assigning to us. We have read the latest draft specification and put together a first round of comments and questions: All the discussions and development are being tracked on Jira (https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI). The whole process seems very transparent and easy to follow which is a very good thing. We view very positively the adoption of JCP 2.8. It looks like there is also a private mailing list the EG uses. Is that in use? What's its purpose? It looks like good work is being done and some interesting new addition have already made it into this new version of the specification, such as: - CDI-86 Support firing general purpose lifecycle events in Java EE environments - CDI-129 Clarify behaviour of @ApplicationScoped in EARs What we would like to see going forward is an "easier and clearer" specification, so the current efforts seem to be going in the right direction. Hopefully more good proposals will be implemented as part of the final version. The lack of clear separation between the SE and EE parts of the specification seems to be an issue that limits adoption. This is also related to the lack of a standard way of bootstrapping the DI container in SE. In this respect we believe the following planned changes will bring improvements: - CDI-160 Split the specification into "Core" and "EE integrations". - CDI-26 Provide a bootstrap API for the CDI container outside of an EE container. Do you think these will make it into CDI 1.1? Other interesting proposals we would like to see implemented are: - CDI-139 Support for unmanaged instances. - CDI-110 Provide support for binding an invocation handler to an interface or abstract class - CDI-30 An API for managing built in contexts I've noticed the first 2 have been voted at the top of the most popular issues. I suppose they are very likely to make it into CDI 1.1. Is that correct? Regarding the following issue, we have a question: - CDI-51 Support static injection Static injection would still not be allowed for final fields, just as for the non-static case, right? Thanks for all your work on the specification. I hope we'll be able to help your efforts going forward. Cheers, Luigi