The only reason why I potentially object is because we already have several scope
annotations specified in CDI itself, when these annotations really do not belong there in
the first place.
There's no good reason I can think of why CDI should know what the
"@RequestScope" or "@ConversationScope" is. AFAIK this was done as a
convenience instead of doing work in the related specs, or as a separate deliverable of
this spec.
But I won't stand in the way. We already have precedent , it's already messy, and
we can't fix it now ;)
~Lincoln
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reza Rahman" <reza_rahman(a)lycos.com>
To: cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 7:28:13 PM
Subject: [cdi-dev] Transaction Scope for CDI
CDI enthusiasts,
Pete, I and Nigel (JMS 2 spec lead) have been discussing the issue of the transaction
scope behind the scenes the past few weeks. Attached is what we came up with and feel it
meets the various related use-cases the most effectively. The downside is that it is quite
involved (conceptually) and might take a bit of patience to absorb. Please give it a read
and let me know your thoughts.
Cheers,
Reza
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev