+1
We are lucky that SE did _not_ yet update, so let's act now ;)
LieGrue,
strub
On Tuesday, 28 October 2014, 13:01, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>It seems, Java SE 8 despite released in 2014 used an OLDER version of JSR 250 (1.0 or
1.1 at most) than Java EE 7, where @Priority (from 1.2) is included.
>
>
>For consistency EE 8 will certainly keep it, but as of now, one would have to ask SE 8
to include the new version. Since EE 8 will build on SE 8 that seems like a conflict or at
least redundancy if you have 2 identical annotations in the same classpath;-)
>
>
>So it isn't just an issue for CDI alone, somewhere before EE 8 goes final, SE 8
will have to update to 1.2 or whatever is available then, so EE 8 can simply build on top
of it instead of including a newer version of the same API in a pre-Jigsaw setup where
this isn't a good thing to have, especially not on a platform level;-)
>
>
>Should the Spec Lead of 250 be able to update @Priority before SE 8 fixes the
inconsistency, then it would solve the Problems of both CDI 2 (light) and the full EE 8
stack.
>
>
>Werner
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:50 PM, <cdi-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org> 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: [VOTE] Using @Priority to order events instead of adding
>> a parameter in @Observes (John D. Ament)
>> 2. Re: cdi-dev Digest, Vol 47, Issue 13 (Werner Keil)
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Message: 1
>>Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:48:53 -0400
>>From: "John D. Ament" <john.d.ament(a)gmail.com>
>>Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] [VOTE] Using @Priority to order events instead
>> of adding a parameter in @Observes
>>To: Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net>
>>Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
>>Message-ID:
>>
<CAOqetn9rpHpZNUV8UfK5Bn=+0S_TgZv=QN2xLW79SA25p4pP9g(a)mail.gmail.com>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>>-1 (vote for a param in @Observes)
>>
>>The reason being, it sounds like there's a lot of unknowns/gaps with trying
>>to do #1. Plus only part of 250 ships with the JVM, as the rest of it
>>comes from the EE spec:
>>https://javaee-spec.java.net/nonav/javadocs/javax/annotation/Priority.html
>>
>>
>>
>>On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:56 AM, Antoine Sabot-Durand <
>>antoine(a)sabot-durand.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>