Re: [cdi-dev] [VOTE] Using @Priority to order events instead of adding a parameter in @Observes

I would be +1 if we can get a commitment to update the version of JSR-250 shipped in the JDK updated as well, otherwise -1 On 28 Oct 2014, at 10:13, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: +1 for 1) Unlike @Inject the Maven JAR for JSR-250 is a bit bigger (~20kb) but there are existing dependencies that are not part of the JDK, most notably JSR-330. Not sure, if subpackages like "security" or "sql" under 250 matter at all, if not, we could explore if the ideas for "stripping" libraries proposed by Oracle may also work for SE/EE. This was discussed by OpenJDK architects including Mark Reinhold with the EC. So far no real progress on that, but till this JSR goes final or EE 8 it could work to get dependencies a bit lighter, too. It is likely, some annotation JSRs not just 250 need overhaul, e.g. to finally make use of JSR-308, so an MR for 250 could be cumbersome, but seems much easier here than e.g. bringing JSR-305 back to life;-) Werner On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:58 AM, <cdi-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; wrote: > Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cdi-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cdi-dev-owner(a)lists.jboss.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cdi-dev digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: microbenchmark for CDI performance (Mohan Radhakrishnan) > 2. [VOTE] Using @Priority to order events instead of adding a > parameter in @Observes (Antoine Sabot-Durand) > 3. No meeting tomorrow (Antoine Sabot-Durand) > 4. Updated Invitation: CDI weekly meeting @ Weekly from 18:00 to > 19:00 on Wednesday except Wed 1 Oct 18:00, Wed 15 Oct 18:00 or > Wed 29 Oct 18:00 (ASD Perso) (antoine(a)sabot-durand.net) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:56:14 +0100 > From: Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; > Subject: [cdi-dev] [VOTE] Using @Priority to order events instead of > adding a parameter in @Observes > To: cdi-dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; > Message-ID: <ECAAD9B3-649C-4856-BB24-82AB9EF41763(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > To add events ordering feature we have two choices: > > 1) Use @Priority from common annotation specification (JSR-250) (vote +1) > pros: > - more consistent with other ordering mechanism we already have in CDI > (Interceptors, decorators, Alternatives) > - more Java EE consistent > > cons: > - time consumed in JSR 250 MR participation (@Priority must be update to > support parameter for target) > - as @Priority is not part of Java SE, CDI light on java SE will have to > add the jsr250 jar as dependency only to have this annotation (which will > make it a little less light) > > 2) Add a parameter to @Observes annotation to give order to an observer > (vote -1) > pros: > - works out of the box (we can add this property without ask for other > specs modification) > - avoid two annotations to declare an ordered observer (simpler usage) > > cons: > - less Java EE spirit > - could be seen as an inconsistency with the way we order Interceptors, > Decorators and Alternatives. > > ???????????????????? > > Who can vote? Everybody registered to this ML can vote. All votes will > be binding > How to vote? Answer this mail and vote +1 (for @Priority) 0 or -1(for > parameter in @Observes) > Vote will be closed in 72 hours > _______________________________________________ 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.