Hi all, Since the first mention of CDI 2.0 preparation work, we've received a lot of comment about JSR 330 evolution. With the release of the proposal draft yesterday, this topic came up again. So let me give my point of view on this subject to have an open discussion here. When we started to discuss about modularity with Pete in last november, my first idea was to go see what we could add in JSR 330 to make it a true specification that could be the first module of CDI. My idea at that time was to discuss with JSR 330 owner to see if we could bring basic concept we have in CDI to AtInject spec. In my mind the main features would have been: - Enhance the javax.inject.Provider<T> interface to bring it at the same level than javax.enterprise.inject.Instance<T>. That would have included support for AnnotationLiteral and TypeLiteral as well - Add a Container interface (a very light BeanManger) in JSR 330 to be able to resolve beans instance from outside managed beans - Add a mechanism to get this Container from non managed beans (like we get access to BeanManager from JNDI or CDI class) At that time, I contacted Bob Lee without success (didn’t tried Pivotal since I don’t have contact there). I checked with JCP what could be done if we’d like to see an evolution of JSR 330 and the owner doesn’t care, there seems to have solutions but I let it aside since we were in the middle of CDI 1.2 MR at that time. Today I’m a bit torn about this point. Working on opening JSR 330 could be like opening pandora box, since I see 2 scenarios : 1) former JSR 330 owners wake up and are ok to get for a new spec version they lead: Knowing the history of JSR 330 vs JSR 299 I’m not sure everything we’d need would be heard and even if the people leading this would be cooperative, a lot of discussion and negotiation would be needed to be sure that this new AtInject wouldn’t contain features incompatible with CDI. So it’d be very time consuming with no guarantee to get what we’d need at the end. 2) former JSR 330 owner don’t mind others take ownership of their spec to enhance it and we (Red Hat) are the one to take this ownership to secure CDI: The best solution to minimize risk. But leading a new specification is a lot more work than just deciding that we have a specific basic inject « part » in CDI 2.0. Leading a spec is very time consuming, so it could be better on the paper but will impact CDI 2.0 new features. To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) Your input, solutions or comment would be appreciated on this point. Antoine

> To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) Well, I'm not spec lead, I'm just a Java EE user... so I like scenario 2 ;o) But on the other hand, I think there is so much work to be done around CDI 2.0, parts, and taking those parts to other specifications that battling with JSR 330 might be time consuming. I would go for scenario 1.... and cross fingers On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Dear Antoine/all, > > Thanks for the detailed overview and trying to reach out to the former > Spec Leads and EG of JSR 330. I also copied Anatole, Spec Lead of JSR 354, > since Bob Lee is officially in his EG, but has practically never provided > input there either (like we tend to see sometimes from others considered > "Rock Stars" of the Java Community but since then seemingly resting on > their laurels or just too busy counting their stock options?[?]) > > Given CDI already was the public perception of "javax.inject" for most > parts, I don't necessarily see that it had to be an MR to the original JSR, > though as those involved in the EC (Martijn, Badr/MoroccoJUG,..) could > probably check with the PMO how to handle a case where the Maintenance Lead > of a JSR was not in the position to continue. I last met Jürgen Höller > about a year ago in Copenhagen, so for Pivotal's part as Co Spec Lead, I > guess he or the likes of Josh Long could be best to speak to. Happy to get > you in touch with them if you want. > > Red Hat was also EG member of JSR 330, so Pete, Gavin or whoever else was > there (I remember him from conversations where Mike Keith and I took part > in synergy discussions between 330 and CDI 1.0) at the time could also help > you with this. > > In theory this could also be part of a new JSR (CDI 2) as long as none of > the enhancements you have in mind break the existing API of JSR 330. The > scope of CDI 2 to work in an SE/standalone or more lightweight environment > than Java EE environment raises a good question of package names like " javax.enterprise.inject.*" > So maybe there is room for synergies in a package namespace other than > "javax.enterprise" at least for new things you have in mind. > > Kind Regards, > > Werner Keil | JCP Executive Committee Member, JSR 363 Co Spec Lead | > Eclipse UOMo Lead, Babel Language Champion | Apache Committer > > Twitter @wernerkeil | @UnitAPI | @JSR354 | #EclipseUOMo | #Java_Social | > #DevOps > Skype werner.keil | Google+ gplus.to/wernerkeil > > * Developer Week: 14/15 Jul 2014, Nürnberg, Germany. Werner Keil, JCP EC > Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead, DevOps Guy will present "Triple-E' class > Continuous Delivery", "JSR 363 and IoT" (GER) > > * JavaZone 2014: 9-11 Sep 2014, Oslo, Norway. Werner Keil, JCP EC Member, > JSR 363 Spec Lead will present "JSR 363 - The Answer to Life Science and > the Internet of Everything" > > * JavaOne 2014: Sep 28-Oct 2 2014, San Francisco, USA, Werner Keil, JCP > EC Member, JSR 354 EG Member will host "Java and Digital Currencies, Friend > or FOE" > > * JMaghreb 3.0: 4-6 Nov 2014, Casablanca, Morocco. Werner Keil, JCP EC > Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead, DevOps Guy will present "Triple-E' class > DevOps", "JSR 363" > > * Mobile Developer Conference kompakt: 18 Nov 2014, Hamburg, Germany. > Werner Keil, JCP EC Member, Apache DeviceMap Committer will present "Apache > DeviceMap" (GER) > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand < > antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Since the first mention of CDI 2.0 preparation work, we've received a >> lot of comment about JSR 330 evolution. With the release of the proposal >> draft yesterday, this topic came up again. So let me give my point of view >> on this subject to have an open discussion here. >> >> When we started to discuss about modularity with Pete in last november, >> my first idea was to go see what we could add in JSR 330 to make it a true >> specification that could be the first module of CDI. My idea at that time >> was to discuss with JSR 330 owner to see if we could bring basic concept we >> have in CDI to AtInject spec. In my mind the main features would have been: >> - Enhance the javax.inject.Provider<T> interface to bring it at the >> same level than javax.enterprise.inject.Instance<T>. That would have >> included support for AnnotationLiteral and TypeLiteral as well >> - Add a Container interface (a very light BeanManger) in JSR 330 to be >> able to resolve beans instance from outside managed beans >> - Add a mechanism to get this Container from non managed beans (like we >> get access to BeanManager from JNDI or CDI class) >> >> At that time, I contacted Bob Lee without success (didn’t tried Pivotal >> since I don’t have contact there). I checked with JCP what could be done if >> we’d like to see an evolution of JSR 330 and the owner doesn’t care, there >> seems to have solutions but I let it aside since we were in the middle of >> CDI 1.2 MR at that time. >> >> Today I’m a bit torn about this point. Working on opening JSR 330 could >> be like opening pandora box, since I see 2 scenarios : >> >> 1) former JSR 330 owners wake up and are ok to get for a new spec >> version they lead: >> Knowing the history of JSR 330 vs JSR 299 I’m not sure everything we’d >> need would be heard and even if the people leading this would be >> cooperative, a lot of discussion and negotiation would be needed to be sure >> that this new AtInject wouldn’t contain features incompatible with CDI. So >> it’d be very time consuming with no guarantee to get what we’d need at the >> end. >> >> 2) former JSR 330 owner don’t mind others take ownership of their spec >> to enhance it and we (Red Hat) are the one to take this ownership to secure >> CDI: >> The best solution to minimize risk. But leading a new specification is a >> lot more work than just deciding that we have a specific basic inject « >> part » in CDI 2.0. Leading a spec is very time consuming, so it could be >> better on the paper but will impact CDI 2.0 new features. >> >> To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be >> happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could >> lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on >> AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) >> >> Your input, solutions or comment would be appreciated on this point. >> >> Antoine >> >> >> > -- Antonio Goncalves Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> | Twitter <http://twitter.com/agoncal> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Pluralsight <http://pluralsight.com/training/Authors/Details/antonio-goncalves> | Paris JUG <http://www.parisjug.org> | Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr>

FYI - I've sent a note to the various folks from Google, Pivotal et al, I'll let Antoine explain the CDI 2.0 proposal to them and I'm sure they'll either join this mailing list / discussion or we'll quickly find out there's no appetite and we can move on. Cheers, Martijn On 3 July 2014 09:51, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Hi All, > > To be blunt, this is a social/community issue - not a technical one. We > simply need to get hold of the folks at Pivotal, Google (and other 330 EG > members) and get them around the virtual table. If they subsequently > aren't interested then fine, you should forge your own path. > > There's an absolute mega ton of 330 based DI code out there and 330 > compliant containers, if CDI 2.0 wants to be the defacto std going forwards > it simply can't afford ignore that. > > @Antoine - let's put our heads together and see who we need to get hold > of in the 330 group, I think CDI 2.0 has strong merits and should be > explored. > > @Werner - your comments about Bob's commitment (considering what he's > done for the tech community at large, let alone Java) are highly > inappropriate, please refrain from personal attacks on this or any other > public forum. > > > Cheers, > Martijn > > > On 3 July 2014 09:02, Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > >> > To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be >> happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could >> lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on >> AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) >> >> Well, I'm not spec lead, I'm just a Java EE user... so I like scenario 2 >> ;o) >> >> But on the other hand, I think there is so much work to be done around >> CDI 2.0, parts, and taking those parts to other specifications that >> battling with JSR 330 might be time consuming. I would go for scenario >> 1.... and cross fingers >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Antoine/all, >>> >>> Thanks for the detailed overview and trying to reach out to the former >>> Spec Leads and EG of JSR 330. I also copied Anatole, Spec Lead of JSR 354, >>> since Bob Lee is officially in his EG, but has practically never provided >>> input there either (like we tend to see sometimes from others considered >>> "Rock Stars" of the Java Community but since then seemingly resting on >>> their laurels or just too busy counting their stock options?[?]) >>> >>> Given CDI already was the public perception of "javax.inject" for most >>> parts, I don't necessarily see that it had to be an MR to the original JSR, >>> though as those involved in the EC (Martijn, Badr/MoroccoJUG,..) could >>> probably check with the PMO how to handle a case where the Maintenance Lead >>> of a JSR was not in the position to continue. I last met Jürgen Höller >>> about a year ago in Copenhagen, so for Pivotal's part as Co Spec Lead, I >>> guess he or the likes of Josh Long could be best to speak to. Happy to get >>> you in touch with them if you want. >>> >>> Red Hat was also EG member of JSR 330, so Pete, Gavin or whoever else >>> was there (I remember him from conversations where Mike Keith and I took >>> part in synergy discussions between 330 and CDI 1.0) at the time could also >>> help you with this. >>> >>> In theory this could also be part of a new JSR (CDI 2) as long as none >>> of the enhancements you have in mind break the existing API of JSR 330. The >>> scope of CDI 2 to work in an SE/standalone or more lightweight environment >>> than Java EE environment raises a good question of package names like " >>> javax.enterprise.inject.*" So maybe there is room for synergies in a >>> package namespace other than "javax.enterprise" at least for new things you >>> have in mind. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> Werner Keil | JCP Executive Committee Member, JSR 363 Co Spec Lead | >>> Eclipse UOMo Lead, Babel Language Champion | Apache Committer >>> >>> Twitter @wernerkeil | @UnitAPI | @JSR354 | #EclipseUOMo | #Java_Social >>> | #DevOps >>> Skype werner.keil | Google+ gplus.to/wernerkeil >>> >>> * Developer Week: 14/15 Jul 2014, Nürnberg, Germany. Werner Keil, JCP >>> EC Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead, DevOps Guy will present "Triple-E' class >>> Continuous Delivery", "JSR 363 and IoT" (GER) >>> >>> * JavaZone 2014: 9-11 Sep 2014, Oslo, Norway. Werner Keil, JCP EC >>> Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead will present "JSR 363 - The Answer to Life >>> Science and the Internet of Everything" >>> >>> * JavaOne 2014: Sep 28-Oct 2 2014, San Francisco, USA, Werner Keil, JCP >>> EC Member, JSR 354 EG Member will host "Java and Digital Currencies, Friend >>> or FOE" >>> >>> * JMaghreb 3.0: 4-6 Nov 2014, Casablanca, Morocco. Werner Keil, JCP EC >>> Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead, DevOps Guy will present "Triple-E' class >>> DevOps", "JSR 363" >>> >>> * Mobile Developer Conference kompakt: 18 Nov 2014, Hamburg, Germany. >>> Werner Keil, JCP EC Member, Apache DeviceMap Committer will present "Apache >>> DeviceMap" (GER) >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand < >>> antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Since the first mention of CDI 2.0 preparation work, we've received a >>>> lot of comment about JSR 330 evolution. With the release of the proposal >>>> draft yesterday, this topic came up again. So let me give my point of view >>>> on this subject to have an open discussion here. >>>> >>>> When we started to discuss about modularity with Pete in last >>>> november, my first idea was to go see what we could add in JSR 330 to make >>>> it a true specification that could be the first module of CDI. My idea at >>>> that time was to discuss with JSR 330 owner to see if we could bring basic >>>> concept we have in CDI to AtInject spec. In my mind the main features would >>>> have been: >>>> - Enhance the javax.inject.Provider<T> interface to bring it at the >>>> same level than javax.enterprise.inject.Instance<T>. That would have >>>> included support for AnnotationLiteral and TypeLiteral as well >>>> - Add a Container interface (a very light BeanManger) in JSR 330 to >>>> be able to resolve beans instance from outside managed beans >>>> - Add a mechanism to get this Container from non managed beans (like >>>> we get access to BeanManager from JNDI or CDI class) >>>> >>>> At that time, I contacted Bob Lee without success (didn’t tried >>>> Pivotal since I don’t have contact there). I checked with JCP what could be >>>> done if we’d like to see an evolution of JSR 330 and the owner doesn’t >>>> care, there seems to have solutions but I let it aside since we were in the >>>> middle of CDI 1.2 MR at that time. >>>> >>>> Today I’m a bit torn about this point. Working on opening JSR 330 >>>> could be like opening pandora box, since I see 2 scenarios : >>>> >>>> 1) former JSR 330 owners wake up and are ok to get for a new spec >>>> version they lead: >>>> Knowing the history of JSR 330 vs JSR 299 I’m not sure everything we’d >>>> need would be heard and even if the people leading this would be >>>> cooperative, a lot of discussion and negotiation would be needed to be sure >>>> that this new AtInject wouldn’t contain features incompatible with CDI. So >>>> it’d be very time consuming with no guarantee to get what we’d need at the >>>> end. >>>> >>>> 2) former JSR 330 owner don’t mind others take ownership of their spec >>>> to enhance it and we (Red Hat) are the one to take this ownership to secure >>>> CDI: >>>> The best solution to minimize risk. But leading a new specification is >>>> a lot more work than just deciding that we have a specific basic inject « >>>> part » in CDI 2.0. Leading a spec is very time consuming, so it could be >>>> better on the paper but will impact CDI 2.0 new features. >>>> >>>> To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be >>>> happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could >>>> lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on >>>> AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) >>>> >>>> Your input, solutions or comment would be appreciated on this point. >>>> >>>> Antoine >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Antonio Goncalves >> Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author >> >> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> | Twitter >> <http://twitter.com/agoncal> | LinkedIn >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Pluralsight >> <http://pluralsight.com/training/Authors/Details/antonio-goncalves> | Paris >> JUG <http://www.parisjug.org> | Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr> >> > >

Am 03.07.2014 um 11:02 schrieb Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg(a)gmail.com&gt;: FYI - I've sent a note to the various folks from Google, Pivotal et al, I'll let Antoine explain the CDI 2.0 proposal to them and I'm sure they'll either join this mailing list / discussion or we'll quickly find out there's no appetite and we can move on. Cheers, Martijn > On 3 July 2014 09:51, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Hi All, > > To be blunt, this is a social/community issue - not a technical one. We simply need to get hold of the folks at Pivotal, Google (and other 330 EG members) and get them around the virtual table. If they subsequently aren't interested then fine, you should forge your own path. > > There's an absolute mega ton of 330 based DI code out there and 330 compliant containers, if CDI 2.0 wants to be the defacto std going forwards it simply can't afford ignore that. > > @Antoine - let's put our heads together and see who we need to get hold of in the 330 group, I think CDI 2.0 has strong merits and should be explored. > > @Werner - your comments about Bob's commitment (considering what he's done for the tech community at large, let alone Java) are highly inappropriate, please refrain from personal attacks on this or any other public forum. > > > Cheers, > Martijn > > >> On 3 July 2014 09:02, Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> > To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) >> >> Well, I'm not spec lead, I'm just a Java EE user... so I like scenario 2 ;o) >> >> But on the other hand, I think there is so much work to be done around CDI 2.0, parts, and taking those parts to other specifications that battling with JSR 330 might be time consuming. I would go for scenario 1.... and cross fingers >> >> >>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> Dear Antoine/all, >>> >>> Thanks for the detailed overview and trying to reach out to the former Spec Leads and EG of JSR 330. I also copied Anatole, Spec Lead of JSR 354, since Bob Lee is officially in his EG, but has practically never provided input there either (like we tend to see sometimes from others considered "Rock Stars" of the Java Community but since then seemingly resting on their laurels or just too busy counting their stock options?<329.gif>) >>> >>> Given CDI already was the public perception of "javax.inject" for most parts, I don't necessarily see that it had to be an MR to the original JSR, though as those involved in the EC (Martijn, Badr/MoroccoJUG,..) could probably check with the PMO how to handle a case where the Maintenance Lead of a JSR was not in the position to continue. I last met Jürgen Höller about a year ago in Copenhagen, so for Pivotal's part as Co Spec Lead, I guess he or the likes of Josh Long could be best to speak to. Happy to get you in touch with them if you want. >>> >>> Red Hat was also EG member of JSR 330, so Pete, Gavin or whoever else was there (I remember him from conversations where Mike Keith and I took part in synergy discussions between 330 and CDI 1.0) at the time could also help you with this. >>> >>> In theory this could also be part of a new JSR (CDI 2) as long as none of the enhancements you have in mind break the existing API of JSR 330. The scope of CDI 2 to work in an SE/standalone or more lightweight environment than Java EE environment raises a good question of package names like " javax.enterprise.inject.*" So maybe there is room for synergies in a package namespace other than "javax.enterprise" at least for new things you have in mind. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> Werner Keil | JCP Executive Committee Member, JSR 363 Co Spec Lead | Eclipse UOMo Lead, Babel Language Champion | Apache Committer >>> Twitter @wernerkeil | @UnitAPI | @JSR354 | #EclipseUOMo | #Java_Social | #DevOps >>> Skype werner.keil | Google+ gplus.to/wernerkeil >>> >>> * Developer Week: 14/15 Jul 2014, Nürnberg, Germany. Werner Keil, JCP EC Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead, DevOps Guy will present "Triple-E' class Continuous Delivery", "JSR 363 and IoT" (GER) >>> >>> * JavaZone 2014: 9-11 Sep 2014, Oslo, Norway. Werner Keil, JCP EC Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead will present "JSR 363 - The Answer to Life Science and the Internet of Everything" >>> >>> * JavaOne 2014: Sep 28-Oct 2 2014, San Francisco, USA, Werner Keil, JCP EC Member, JSR 354 EG Member will host "Java and Digital Currencies, Friend or FOE" >>> >>> * JMaghreb 3.0: 4-6 Nov 2014, Casablanca, Morocco. Werner Keil, JCP EC Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead, DevOps Guy will present "Triple-E' class DevOps", "JSR 363" >>> >>> * Mobile Developer Conference kompakt: 18 Nov 2014, Hamburg, Germany. Werner Keil, JCP EC Member, Apache DeviceMap Committer will present "Apache DeviceMap" (GER) >>> >>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Since the first mention of CDI 2.0 preparation work, we've received a lot of comment about JSR 330 evolution. With the release of the proposal draft yesterday, this topic came up again. So let me give my point of view on this subject to have an open discussion here. >>>> >>>> When we started to discuss about modularity with Pete in last november, my first idea was to go see what we could add in JSR 330 to make it a true specification that could be the first module of CDI. My idea at that time was to discuss with JSR 330 owner to see if we could bring basic concept we have in CDI to AtInject spec. In my mind the main features would have been: >>>> - Enhance the javax.inject.Provider<T> interface to bring it at the same level than javax.enterprise.inject.Instance<T>. That would have included support for AnnotationLiteral and TypeLiteral as well >>>> - Add a Container interface (a very light BeanManger) in JSR 330 to be able to resolve beans instance from outside managed beans >>>> - Add a mechanism to get this Container from non managed beans (like we get access to BeanManager from JNDI or CDI class) >>>> >>>> At that time, I contacted Bob Lee without success (didn’t tried Pivotal since I don’t have contact there). I checked with JCP what could be done if we’d like to see an evolution of JSR 330 and the owner doesn’t care, there seems to have solutions but I let it aside since we were in the middle of CDI 1.2 MR at that time. >>>> >>>> Today I’m a bit torn about this point. Working on opening JSR 330 could be like opening pandora box, since I see 2 scenarios : >>>> >>>> 1) former JSR 330 owners wake up and are ok to get for a new spec version they lead: >>>> Knowing the history of JSR 330 vs JSR 299 I’m not sure everything we’d need would be heard and even if the people leading this would be cooperative, a lot of discussion and negotiation would be needed to be sure that this new AtInject wouldn’t contain features incompatible with CDI. So it’d be very time consuming with no guarantee to get what we’d need at the end. >>>> >>>> 2) former JSR 330 owner don’t mind others take ownership of their spec to enhance it and we (Red Hat) are the one to take this ownership to secure CDI: >>>> The best solution to minimize risk. But leading a new specification is a lot more work than just deciding that we have a specific basic inject « part » in CDI 2.0. Leading a spec is very time consuming, so it could be better on the paper but will impact CDI 2.0 new features. >>>> >>>> To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) >>>> >>>> Your input, solutions or comment would be appreciated on this point. >>>> >>>> Antoine >> >> >> >> -- >> Antonio Goncalves >> Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author >> >> Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France

Martijn, I started this thread to discuss wether we should do what you’ve just done or not . I’d have liked to have Pete input before stepping like this. I guess the decision is taken now ;). Anyway, thanks for your enthusiasm. It gives good vibes for the coming JSR ;). Antoine Le 3 juil. 2014 à 11:02, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg(a)gmail.com&gt; a écrit : FYI - I've sent a note to the various folks from Google, Pivotal et al, I'll let Antoine explain the CDI 2.0 proposal to them and I'm sure they'll either join this mailing list / discussion or we'll quickly find out there's no appetite and we can move on. Cheers, Martijn On 3 July 2014 09:51, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Hi All, > > To be blunt, this is a social/community issue - not a technical one. We > simply need to get hold of the folks at Pivotal, Google (and other 330 EG > members) and get them around the virtual table. If they subsequently > aren't interested then fine, you should forge your own path. > > There's an absolute mega ton of 330 based DI code out there and 330 > compliant containers, if CDI 2.0 wants to be the defacto std going forwards > it simply can't afford ignore that. > > @Antoine - let's put our heads together and see who we need to get hold > of in the 330 group, I think CDI 2.0 has strong merits and should be > explored. > > @Werner - your comments about Bob's commitment (considering what he's > done for the tech community at large, let alone Java) are highly > inappropriate, please refrain from personal attacks on this or any other > public forum. > > > Cheers, > Martijn > > > On 3 July 2014 09:02, Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > >> > To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be >> happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could >> lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on >> AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) >> >> Well, I'm not spec lead, I'm just a Java EE user... so I like scenario 2 >> ;o) >> >> But on the other hand, I think there is so much work to be done around >> CDI 2.0, parts, and taking those parts to other specifications that >> battling with JSR 330 might be time consuming. I would go for scenario >> 1.... and cross fingers >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Antoine/all, >>> >>> Thanks for the detailed overview and trying to reach out to the former >>> Spec Leads and EG of JSR 330. I also copied Anatole, Spec Lead of JSR 354, >>> since Bob Lee is officially in his EG, but has practically never provided >>> input there either (like we tend to see sometimes from others considered >>> "Rock Stars" of the Java Community but since then seemingly resting on >>> their laurels or just too busy counting their stock options?<329.gif>) >>> >>> Given CDI already was the public perception of "javax.inject" for most >>> parts, I don't necessarily see that it had to be an MR to the original JSR, >>> though as those involved in the EC (Martijn, Badr/MoroccoJUG,..) could >>> probably check with the PMO how to handle a case where the Maintenance Lead >>> of a JSR was not in the position to continue. I last met Jürgen Höller >>> about a year ago in Copenhagen, so for Pivotal's part as Co Spec Lead, I >>> guess he or the likes of Josh Long could be best to speak to. Happy to get >>> you in touch with them if you want. >>> >>> Red Hat was also EG member of JSR 330, so Pete, Gavin or whoever else >>> was there (I remember him from conversations where Mike Keith and I took >>> part in synergy discussions between 330 and CDI 1.0) at the time could also >>> help you with this. >>> >>> In theory this could also be part of a new JSR (CDI 2) as long as none >>> of the enhancements you have in mind break the existing API of JSR 330. The >>> scope of CDI 2 to work in an SE/standalone or more lightweight environment >>> than Java EE environment raises a good question of package names like " >>> javax.enterprise.inject.*" So maybe there is room for synergies in a >>> package namespace other than "javax.enterprise" at least for new things you >>> have in mind. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> Werner Keil | JCP Executive Committee Member, JSR 363 Co Spec Lead | >>> Eclipse UOMo Lead, Babel Language Champion | Apache Committer >>> Twitter @wernerkeil | @UnitAPI | @JSR354 | #EclipseUOMo | #Java_Social >>> | #DevOps >>> Skype werner.keil | Google+ gplus.to/wernerkeil >>> >>> * Developer Week: 14/15 Jul 2014, Nürnberg, Germany. Werner Keil, JCP >>> EC Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead, DevOps Guy will present "Triple-E' class >>> Continuous Delivery", "JSR 363 and IoT" (GER) >>> >>> * JavaZone 2014: 9-11 Sep 2014, Oslo, Norway. Werner Keil, JCP EC >>> Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead will present "JSR 363 - The Answer to Life >>> Science and the Internet of Everything" >>> >>> * JavaOne 2014: Sep 28-Oct 2 2014, San Francisco, USA, Werner Keil, JCP >>> EC Member, JSR 354 EG Member will host "Java and Digital Currencies, Friend >>> or FOE" >>> >>> * JMaghreb 3.0: 4-6 Nov 2014, Casablanca, Morocco. Werner Keil, JCP EC >>> Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead, DevOps Guy will present "Triple-E' class >>> DevOps", "JSR 363" >>> >>> * Mobile Developer Conference kompakt: 18 Nov 2014, Hamburg, Germany. >>> Werner Keil, JCP EC Member, Apache DeviceMap Committer will present "Apache >>> DeviceMap" (GER) >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand < >>> antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Since the first mention of CDI 2.0 preparation work, we've received a >>>> lot of comment about JSR 330 evolution. With the release of the proposal >>>> draft yesterday, this topic came up again. So let me give my point of view >>>> on this subject to have an open discussion here. >>>> >>>> When we started to discuss about modularity with Pete in last >>>> november, my first idea was to go see what we could add in JSR 330 to make >>>> it a true specification that could be the first module of CDI. My idea at >>>> that time was to discuss with JSR 330 owner to see if we could bring basic >>>> concept we have in CDI to AtInject spec. In my mind the main features would >>>> have been: >>>> - Enhance the javax.inject.Provider<T> interface to bring it at the >>>> same level than javax.enterprise.inject.Instance<T>. That would have >>>> included support for AnnotationLiteral and TypeLiteral as well >>>> - Add a Container interface (a very light BeanManger) in JSR 330 to >>>> be able to resolve beans instance from outside managed beans >>>> - Add a mechanism to get this Container from non managed beans (like >>>> we get access to BeanManager from JNDI or CDI class) >>>> >>>> At that time, I contacted Bob Lee without success (didn’t tried >>>> Pivotal since I don’t have contact there). I checked with JCP what could be >>>> done if we’d like to see an evolution of JSR 330 and the owner doesn’t >>>> care, there seems to have solutions but I let it aside since we were in the >>>> middle of CDI 1.2 MR at that time. >>>> >>>> Today I’m a bit torn about this point. Working on opening JSR 330 >>>> could be like opening pandora box, since I see 2 scenarios : >>>> >>>> 1) former JSR 330 owners wake up and are ok to get for a new spec >>>> version they lead: >>>> Knowing the history of JSR 330 vs JSR 299 I’m not sure everything we’d >>>> need would be heard and even if the people leading this would be >>>> cooperative, a lot of discussion and negotiation would be needed to be sure >>>> that this new AtInject wouldn’t contain features incompatible with CDI. So >>>> it’d be very time consuming with no guarantee to get what we’d need at the >>>> end. >>>> >>>> 2) former JSR 330 owner don’t mind others take ownership of their spec >>>> to enhance it and we (Red Hat) are the one to take this ownership to secure >>>> CDI: >>>> The best solution to minimize risk. But leading a new specification is >>>> a lot more work than just deciding that we have a specific basic inject « >>>> part » in CDI 2.0. Leading a spec is very time consuming, so it could be >>>> better on the paper but will impact CDI 2.0 new features. >>>> >>>> To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be >>>> happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could >>>> lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on >>>> AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) >>>> >>>> Your input, solutions or comment would be appreciated on this point. >>>> >>>> Antoine >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Antonio Goncalves >> Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author >> >> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org/> | Twitter >> <http://twitter.com/agoncal> | LinkedIn >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Pluralsight >> <http://pluralsight.com/training/Authors/Details/antonio-goncalves> | Paris >> JUG <http://www.parisjug.org/> | Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr/> >> > >

Hi Antoine, My apologies - I'm like a Bull in a China shop when it comes to trying to get people together - I always figure that if its a "No" then we should get to the "No" quickly :-). I think CDI 2.0 is important to the community at large - it may pivot slightly from the original intent, but context aware DI for Java SE would be a powerful tool in the toolbox (e.g. Oh look I'm writing a Java SE app that uses websockets......, now I just need to inject a....). Cheers, Martijn On 3 July 2014 11:15, Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: > Martijn, > > I started this thread to discuss wether we should do what you’ve just > done or not . I’d have liked to have Pete input before stepping like this. > I guess the decision is taken now ;). > Anyway, thanks for your enthusiasm. It gives good vibes for the coming > JSR ;). > > > Antoine > > > Le 3 juil. 2014 à 11:02, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg(a)gmail.com&gt; a > écrit : > > FYI - I've sent a note to the various folks from Google, Pivotal et al, > I'll let Antoine explain the CDI 2.0 proposal to them and I'm sure they'll > either join this mailing list / discussion or we'll quickly find out > there's no appetite and we can move on. > > Cheers, > Martijn > > > On 3 July 2014 09:51, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> To be blunt, this is a social/community issue - not a technical one. We >> simply need to get hold of the folks at Pivotal, Google (and other 330 EG >> members) and get them around the virtual table. If they subsequently >> aren't interested then fine, you should forge your own path. >> >> There's an absolute mega ton of 330 based DI code out there and 330 >> compliant containers, if CDI 2.0 wants to be the defacto std going forwards >> it simply can't afford ignore that. >> >> @Antoine - let's put our heads together and see who we need to get hold >> of in the 330 group, I think CDI 2.0 has strong merits and should be >> explored. >> >> @Werner - your comments about Bob's commitment (considering what he's >> done for the tech community at large, let alone Java) are highly >> inappropriate, please refrain from personal attacks on this or any other >> public forum. >> >> >> Cheers, >> Martijn >> >> >> On 3 July 2014 09:02, Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves(a)gmail.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >>> > To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be >>> happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could >>> lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on >>> AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) >>> >>> Well, I'm not spec lead, I'm just a Java EE user... so I like scenario >>> 2 ;o) >>> >>> But on the other hand, I think there is so much work to be done around >>> CDI 2.0, parts, and taking those parts to other specifications that >>> battling with JSR 330 might be time consuming. I would go for scenario >>> 1.... and cross fingers >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Antoine/all, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the detailed overview and trying to reach out to the former >>>> Spec Leads and EG of JSR 330. I also copied Anatole, Spec Lead of JSR 354, >>>> since Bob Lee is officially in his EG, but has practically never provided >>>> input there either (like we tend to see sometimes from others considered >>>> "Rock Stars" of the Java Community but since then seemingly resting on >>>> their laurels or just too busy counting their stock options?<329.gif> >>>> ) >>>> >>>> Given CDI already was the public perception of "javax.inject" for most >>>> parts, I don't necessarily see that it had to be an MR to the original JSR, >>>> though as those involved in the EC (Martijn, Badr/MoroccoJUG,..) could >>>> probably check with the PMO how to handle a case where the Maintenance Lead >>>> of a JSR was not in the position to continue. I last met Jürgen Höller >>>> about a year ago in Copenhagen, so for Pivotal's part as Co Spec Lead, I >>>> guess he or the likes of Josh Long could be best to speak to. Happy to get >>>> you in touch with them if you want. >>>> >>>> Red Hat was also EG member of JSR 330, so Pete, Gavin or whoever else >>>> was there (I remember him from conversations where Mike Keith and I took >>>> part in synergy discussions between 330 and CDI 1.0) at the time could also >>>> help you with this. >>>> >>>> In theory this could also be part of a new JSR (CDI 2) as long as none >>>> of the enhancements you have in mind break the existing API of JSR 330. The >>>> scope of CDI 2 to work in an SE/standalone or more lightweight environment >>>> than Java EE environment raises a good question of package names like " >>>> javax.enterprise.inject.*" So maybe there is room for synergies in a >>>> package namespace other than "javax.enterprise" at least for new things you >>>> have in mind. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> >>>> Werner Keil | JCP Executive Committee Member, JSR 363 Co Spec Lead | >>>> Eclipse UOMo Lead, Babel Language Champion | Apache Committer >>>> Twitter @wernerkeil | @UnitAPI | @JSR354 | #EclipseUOMo | #Java_Social >>>> | #DevOps >>>> Skype werner.keil | Google+ gplus.to/wernerkeil >>>> >>>> * Developer Week: 14/15 Jul 2014, Nürnberg, Germany. Werner Keil, JCP >>>> EC Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead, DevOps Guy will present "Triple-E' >>>> class Continuous Delivery", "JSR 363 and IoT" (GER) >>>> >>>> * JavaZone 2014: 9-11 Sep 2014, Oslo, Norway. Werner Keil, JCP EC >>>> Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead will present "JSR 363 - The Answer to Life >>>> Science and the Internet of Everything" >>>> >>>> * JavaOne 2014: Sep 28-Oct 2 2014, San Francisco, USA, Werner Keil, >>>> JCP EC Member, JSR 354 EG Member will host "Java and Digital Currencies, >>>> Friend or FOE" >>>> >>>> * JMaghreb 3.0: 4-6 Nov 2014, Casablanca, Morocco. Werner Keil, JCP EC >>>> Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead, DevOps Guy will present "Triple-E' class >>>> DevOps", "JSR 363" >>>> >>>> * Mobile Developer Conference kompakt: 18 Nov 2014, Hamburg, Germany. >>>> Werner Keil, JCP EC Member, Apache DeviceMap Committer will present "Apache >>>> DeviceMap" (GER) >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand < >>>> antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Since the first mention of CDI 2.0 preparation work, we've received a >>>>> lot of comment about JSR 330 evolution. With the release of the proposal >>>>> draft yesterday, this topic came up again. So let me give my point of view >>>>> on this subject to have an open discussion here. >>>>> >>>>> When we started to discuss about modularity with Pete in last >>>>> november, my first idea was to go see what we could add in JSR 330 to make >>>>> it a true specification that could be the first module of CDI. My idea at >>>>> that time was to discuss with JSR 330 owner to see if we could bring basic >>>>> concept we have in CDI to AtInject spec. In my mind the main features would >>>>> have been: >>>>> - Enhance the javax.inject.Provider<T> interface to bring it at the >>>>> same level than javax.enterprise.inject.Instance<T>. That would have >>>>> included support for AnnotationLiteral and TypeLiteral as well >>>>> - Add a Container interface (a very light BeanManger) in JSR 330 to >>>>> be able to resolve beans instance from outside managed beans >>>>> - Add a mechanism to get this Container from non managed beans (like >>>>> we get access to BeanManager from JNDI or CDI class) >>>>> >>>>> At that time, I contacted Bob Lee without success (didn’t tried >>>>> Pivotal since I don’t have contact there). I checked with JCP what could be >>>>> done if we’d like to see an evolution of JSR 330 and the owner doesn’t >>>>> care, there seems to have solutions but I let it aside since we were in the >>>>> middle of CDI 1.2 MR at that time. >>>>> >>>>> Today I’m a bit torn about this point. Working on opening JSR 330 >>>>> could be like opening pandora box, since I see 2 scenarios : >>>>> >>>>> 1) former JSR 330 owners wake up and are ok to get for a new spec >>>>> version they lead: >>>>> Knowing the history of JSR 330 vs JSR 299 I’m not sure everything >>>>> we’d need would be heard and even if the people leading this would be >>>>> cooperative, a lot of discussion and negotiation would be needed to be sure >>>>> that this new AtInject wouldn’t contain features incompatible with CDI. So >>>>> it’d be very time consuming with no guarantee to get what we’d need at the >>>>> end. >>>>> >>>>> 2) former JSR 330 owner don’t mind others take ownership of their >>>>> spec to enhance it and we (Red Hat) are the one to take this ownership to >>>>> secure CDI: >>>>> The best solution to minimize risk. But leading a new specification >>>>> is a lot more work than just deciding that we have a specific basic inject >>>>> « part » in CDI 2.0. Leading a spec is very time consuming, so it could be >>>>> better on the paper but will impact CDI 2.0 new features. >>>>> >>>>> To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be >>>>> happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could >>>>> lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on >>>>> AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) >>>>> >>>>> Your input, solutions or comment would be appreciated on this point. >>>>> >>>>> Antoine >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Antonio Goncalves >>> Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author >>> >>> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org/> | Twitter >>> <http://twitter.com/agoncal> | LinkedIn >>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Pluralsight >>> <http://pluralsight.com/training/Authors/Details/antonio-goncalves> | Paris >>> JUG <http://www.parisjug.org/> | Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr/> >>> >> >> > >

FYI - I've sent a note to the various folks from Google, Pivotal et al, I'll let Antoine explain the CDI 2.0 proposal to them and I'm sure they'll either join this mailing list / discussion or we'll quickly find out there's no appetite and we can move on. Cheers, Martijn On 3 July 2014 09:51, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Hi All, To be blunt, this is a social/community issue - not a technical one. We simply need to get hold of the folks at Pivotal, Google (and other 330 EG members) and get them around the virtual table. If they subsequently aren't interested then fine, you should forge your own path. There's an absolute mega ton of 330 based DI code out there and 330 compliant containers, if CDI 2.0 wants to be the defacto std going forwards it simply can't afford ignore that. @Antoine - let's put our heads together and see who we need to get hold of in the 330 group, I think CDI 2.0 has strong merits and should be explored. @Werner - your comments about Bob's commitment (considering what he's done for the tech community at large, let alone Java) are highly inappropriate, please refrain from personal attacks on this or any other public forum. Cheers, Martijn On 3 July 2014 09:02, Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) Well, I'm not spec lead, I'm just a Java EE user... so I like scenario 2 ;o) But on the other hand, I think there is so much work to be done around CDI 2.0, parts, and taking those parts to other specifications that battling with JSR 330 might be time consuming. I would go for scenario 1.... and cross fingers On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Dear Antoine/all, Thanks for the detailed overview and trying to reach out to the former Spec Leads and EG of JSR 330. I also copied Anatole, Spec Lead of JSR 354, since Bob Lee is officially in his EG, but has practically never provided input there either (like we tend to see sometimes from others considered "Rock Stars" of the Java Community but since then seemingly resting on their laurels or just too busy counting their stock options?<329.gif>) Given CDI already was the public perception of "javax.inject" for most parts, I don't necessarily see that it had to be an MR to the original JSR, though as those involved in the EC (Martijn, Badr/MoroccoJUG,..) could probably check with the PMO how to handle a case where the Maintenance Lead of a JSR was not in the position to continue. I last met Jürgen Höller about a year ago in Copenhagen, so for Pivotal's part as Co Spec Lead, I guess he or the likes of Josh Long could be best to speak to. Happy to get you in touch with them if you want. Red Hat was also EG member of JSR 330, so Pete, Gavin or whoever else was there (I remember him from conversations where Mike Keith and I took part in synergy discussions between 330 and CDI 1.0) at the time could also help you with this. In theory this could also be part of a new JSR (CDI 2) as long as none of the enhancements you have in mind break the existing API of JSR 330. The scope of CDI 2 to work in an SE/standalone or more lightweight environment than Java EE environment raises a good question of package names like " javax.enterprise.inject.*" So maybe there is room for synergies in a package namespace other than "javax.enterprise" at least for new things you have in mind. Kind Regards, Werner Keil | JCP Executive Committee Member, JSR 363 Co Spec Lead | Eclipse UOMo Lead, Babel Language Champion | Apache Committer Twitter @wernerkeil | @UnitAPI | @JSR354 | #EclipseUOMo | #Java_Social | #DevOps Skype werner.keil | Google+ gplus.to/wernerkeil * Developer Week: 14/15 Jul 2014, Nürnberg, Germany. Werner Keil, JCP EC Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead, DevOps Guy will present "Triple-E' class Continuous Delivery", "JSR 363 and IoT" (GER) * JavaZone 2014: 9-11 Sep 2014, Oslo, Norway. Werner Keil, JCP EC Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead will present "JSR 363 - The Answer to Life Science and the Internet of Everything" * JavaOne 2014: Sep 28-Oct 2 2014, San Francisco, USA, Werner Keil, JCP EC Member, JSR 354 EG Member will host "Java and Digital Currencies, Friend or FOE" * JMaghreb 3.0: 4-6 Nov 2014, Casablanca, Morocco. Werner Keil, JCP EC Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead, DevOps Guy will present "Triple-E' class DevOps", "JSR 363" * Mobile Developer Conference kompakt: 18 Nov 2014, Hamburg, Germany. Werner Keil, JCP EC Member, Apache DeviceMap Committer will present "Apache DeviceMap" (GER) On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: Hi all, Since the first mention of CDI 2.0 preparation work, we've received a lot of comment about JSR 330 evolution. With the release of the proposal draft yesterday, this topic came up again. So let me give my point of view on this subject to have an open discussion here. When we started to discuss about modularity with Pete in last november, my first idea was to go see what we could add in JSR 330 to make it a true specification that could be the first module of CDI. My idea at that time was to discuss with JSR 330 owner to see if we could bring basic concept we have in CDI to AtInject spec. In my mind the main features would have been: - Enhance the javax.inject.Provider<T> interface to bring it at the same level than javax.enterprise.inject.Instance<T>. That would have included support for AnnotationLiteral and TypeLiteral as well - Add a Container interface (a very light BeanManger) in JSR 330 to be able to resolve beans instance from outside managed beans - Add a mechanism to get this Container from non managed beans (like we get access to BeanManager from JNDI or CDI class) At that time, I contacted Bob Lee without success (didn’t tried Pivotal since I don’t have contact there). I checked with JCP what could be done if we’d like to see an evolution of JSR 330 and the owner doesn’t care, there seems to have solutions but I let it aside since we were in the middle of CDI 1.2 MR at that time. Today I’m a bit torn about this point. Working on opening JSR 330 could be like opening pandora box, since I see 2 scenarios : 1) former JSR 330 owners wake up and are ok to get for a new spec version they lead: Knowing the history of JSR 330 vs JSR 299 I’m not sure everything we’d need would be heard and even if the people leading this would be cooperative, a lot of discussion and negotiation would be needed to be sure that this new AtInject wouldn’t contain features incompatible with CDI. So it’d be very time consuming with no guarantee to get what we’d need at the end. 2) former JSR 330 owner don’t mind others take ownership of their spec to enhance it and we (Red Hat) are the one to take this ownership to secure CDI: The best solution to minimize risk. But leading a new specification is a lot more work than just deciding that we have a specific basic inject « part » in CDI 2.0. Leading a spec is very time consuming, so it could be better on the paper but will impact CDI 2.0 new features. To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) Your input, solutions or comment would be appreciated on this point. Antoine -- Antonio Goncalves Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev

I know, back then it was sort of legitimate, see Greg Luck and 107, but the whole idea of JCP.next and JSRs between 148 and 164 is to ensure, "Individual Members" contribute only on their own behalf, and in most cases (especially for the Spec Lead Role, it might be a bit less critical if you just submit a pull-request every once in a while or contribute via Gerrit, etc.) that is a conflict if he or others work for another company like Bob does at Square now. On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: BTW it’s actually Bob Lee who owns JSR-330, he took it with him personally when left Google. On 3 Jul 2014, at 10:02, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > FYI - I've sent a note to the various folks from Google, Pivotal et al, I'll let Antoine explain the CDI 2.0 proposal to them and I'm sure they'll either join this mailing list / discussion or we'll quickly find out there's no appetite and we can move on. > > Cheers, > Martijn > > > On 3 July 2014 09:51, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Hi All, > > To be blunt, this is a social/community issue - not a technical one. We simply need to get hold of the folks at Pivotal, Google (and other 330 EG members) and get them around the virtual table. If they subsequently aren't interested then fine, you should forge your own path. > > There's an absolute mega ton of 330 based DI code out there and 330 compliant containers, if CDI 2.0 wants to be the defacto std going forwards it simply can't afford ignore that. > > @Antoine - let's put our heads together and see who we need to get hold of in the 330 group, I think CDI 2.0 has strong merits and should be explored. > > @Werner - your comments about Bob's commitment (considering what he's done for the tech community at large, let alone Java) are highly inappropriate, please refrain from personal attacks on this or any other public forum. > > > Cheers, > Martijn > > > On 3 July 2014 09:02, Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) > > Well, I'm not spec lead, I'm just a Java EE user... so I like scenario 2 ;o) > > But on the other hand, I think there is so much work to be done around CDI 2.0, parts, and taking those parts to other specifications that battling with JSR 330 might be time consuming. I would go for scenario 1.... and cross fingers > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Dear Antoine/all, > > Thanks for the detailed overview and trying to reach out to the former Spec Leads and EG of JSR 330. I also copied Anatole, Spec Lead of JSR 354, since Bob Lee is officially in his EG, but has practically never provided input there either (like we tend to see sometimes from others considered "Rock Stars" of the Java Community but since then seemingly resting on their laurels or just too busy counting their stock options?<329.gif>) > > Given CDI already was the public perception of "javax.inject" for most parts, I don't necessarily see that it had to be an MR to the original JSR, though as those involved in the EC (Martijn, Badr/MoroccoJUG,..) could probably check with the PMO how to handle a case where the Maintenance Lead of a JSR was not in the position to continue. I last met Jürgen Höller about a year ago in Copenhagen, so for Pivotal's part as Co Spec Lead, I guess he or the likes of Josh Long could be best to speak to. Happy to get you in touch with them if you want. > > Red Hat was also EG member of JSR 330, so Pete, Gavin or whoever else was there (I remember him from conversations where Mike Keith and I took part in synergy discussions between 330 and CDI 1.0) at the time could also help you with this. > > In theory this could also be part of a new JSR (CDI 2) as long as none of the enhancements you have in mind break the existing API of JSR 330. The scope of CDI 2 to work in an SE/standalone or more lightweight environment than Java EE environment raises a good question of package names like " javax.enterprise.inject.*" So maybe there is room for synergies in a package namespace other than "javax.enterprise" at least for new things you have in mind. > > Kind Regards, > > Werner Keil | JCP Executive Committee Member, JSR 363 Co Spec Lead | Eclipse UOMo Lead, Babel Language Champion | Apache Committer > Twitter @wernerkeil | @UnitAPI | @JSR354 | #EclipseUOMo | #Java_Social | #DevOps > Skype werner.keil | Google+ gplus.to/wernerkeil > > * Developer Week: 14/15 Jul 2014, Nürnberg, Germany. Werner Keil, JCP EC Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead, DevOps Guy will present "Triple-E' class Continuous Delivery", "JSR 363 and IoT" (GER) > > * JavaZone 2014: 9-11 Sep 2014, Oslo, Norway. Werner Keil, JCP EC Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead will present "JSR 363 - The Answer to Life Science and the Internet of Everything" > > * JavaOne 2014: Sep 28-Oct 2 2014, San Francisco, USA, Werner Keil, JCP EC Member, JSR 354 EG Member will host "Java and Digital Currencies, Friend or FOE" > > * JMaghreb 3.0: 4-6 Nov 2014, Casablanca, Morocco. Werner Keil, JCP EC Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead, DevOps Guy will present "Triple-E' class DevOps", "JSR 363" > > * Mobile Developer Conference kompakt: 18 Nov 2014, Hamburg, Germany. Werner Keil, JCP EC Member, Apache DeviceMap Committer will present "Apache DeviceMap" (GER) > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: > Hi all, > > Since the first mention of CDI 2.0 preparation work, we've received a lot of comment about JSR 330 evolution. With the release of the proposal draft yesterday, this topic came up again. So let me give my point of view on this subject to have an open discussion here. > > When we started to discuss about modularity with Pete in last november, my first idea was to go see what we could add in JSR 330 to make it a true specification that could be the first module of CDI. My idea at that time was to discuss with JSR 330 owner to see if we could bring basic concept we have in CDI to AtInject spec. In my mind the main features would have been: > - Enhance the javax.inject.Provider<T> interface to bring it at the same level than javax.enterprise.inject.Instance<T>. That would have included support for AnnotationLiteral and TypeLiteral as well > - Add a Container interface (a very light BeanManger) in JSR 330 to be able to resolve beans instance from outside managed beans > - Add a mechanism to get this Container from non managed beans (like we get access to BeanManager from JNDI or CDI class) > > At that time, I contacted Bob Lee without success (didn’t tried Pivotal since I don’t have contact there). I checked with JCP what could be done if we’d like to see an evolution of JSR 330 and the owner doesn’t care, there seems to have solutions but I let it aside since we were in the middle of CDI 1.2 MR at that time. > > Today I’m a bit torn about this point. Working on opening JSR 330 could be like opening pandora box, since I see 2 scenarios : > > 1) former JSR 330 owners wake up and are ok to get for a new spec version they lead: > Knowing the history of JSR 330 vs JSR 299 I’m not sure everything we’d need would be heard and even if the people leading this would be cooperative, a lot of discussion and negotiation would be needed to be sure that this new AtInject wouldn’t contain features incompatible with CDI. So it’d be very time consuming with no guarantee to get what we’d need at the end. > > 2) former JSR 330 owner don’t mind others take ownership of their spec to enhance it and we (Red Hat) are the one to take this ownership to secure CDI: > The best solution to minimize risk. But leading a new specification is a lot more work than just deciding that we have a specific basic inject « part » in CDI 2.0. Leading a spec is very time consuming, so it could be better on the paper but will impact CDI 2.0 new features. > > To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) > > Your input, solutions or comment would be appreciated on this point. > > Antoine > > > > > > > -- > Antonio Goncalves > Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author > > Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev

Hi all, Since the first mention of CDI 2.0 preparation work, we've received a lot of comment about JSR 330 evolution. With the release of the proposal draft yesterday, this topic came up again. So let me give my point of view on this subject to have an open discussion here. When we started to discuss about modularity with Pete in last november, my first idea was to go see what we could add in JSR 330 to make it a true specification that could be the first module of CDI. My idea at that time was to discuss with JSR 330 owner to see if we could bring basic concept we have in CDI to AtInject spec. In my mind the main features would have been: - Enhance the javax.inject.Provider<T> interface to bring it at the same level than javax.enterprise.inject.Instance<T>. That would have included support for AnnotationLiteral and TypeLiteral as well - Add a Container interface (a very light BeanManger) in JSR 330 to be able to resolve beans instance from outside managed beans - Add a mechanism to get this Container from non managed beans (like we get access to BeanManager from JNDI or CDI class) At that time, I contacted Bob Lee without success (didn't tried Pivotal since I don't have contact there). I checked with JCP what could be done if we'd like to see an evolution of JSR 330 and the owner doesn't care, there seems to have solutions but I let it aside since we were in the middle of CDI 1.2 MR at that time. Today I'm a bit torn about this point. Working on opening JSR 330 could be like opening pandora box, since I see 2 scenarios : 1) former JSR 330 owners wake up and are ok to get for a new spec version they lead: Knowing the history of JSR 330 vs JSR 299 I'm not sure everything we'd need would be heard and even if the people leading this would be cooperative, a lot of discussion and negotiation would be needed to be sure that this new AtInject wouldn't contain features incompatible with CDI. So it'd be very time consuming with no guarantee to get what we'd need at the end. 2) former JSR 330 owner don't mind others take ownership of their spec to enhance it and we (Red Hat) are the one to take this ownership to secure CDI: The best solution to minimize risk. But leading a new specification is a lot more work than just deciding that we have a specific basic inject << part >> in CDI 2.0. Leading a spec is very time consuming, so it could be better on the paper but will impact CDI 2.0 new features. To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I'd be happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) Your input, solutions or comment would be appreciated on this point. Antoine _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev

I guess with only 5 or 6 annotations (and that's all the JSR consists of;-) if changing/improving only one or two of these was what's needed, this could be easiest as MR, otherwise 330 is history as it would require a new JSR. JSR 330 was under JCP 2.7 and for final JSRs they normally stay there, I don't think it can move to a newer version of the JCP: https://jcp.org/en/resources/guide-maintenance#2_7 The trouble is, both Spec Leads seem unresponsive or no longer around (Rod Johnson left Pivotal, Pivotal in its current form does not even seem JCP member and VMware may not be able or interested to step in for them) maybe Pete knows best if Bob was, as until JSR 364 or even a new version of the JSPA are finalized he could probably do it if he wants and has the time for this right now (especially if another JSR like CDI 2 depends on it, that can't be delayed even if this JSR may technically still be unaffected by JCP 2.8+)  Except for active corporate members Oracle, Red Hat or IBM the whole EG practically disintegrated. Doug Lea and Tim Peirls may be involved elsewhere (mostly OpenJDK from all I heard) but they have not been active in the JCP or active JSRs recently. Google, we heard gave up the Spec Lead in the first place, so it is unlikely under the current circumstances it will play an active role. Jason VanZyl and Maven I know they at least use JSR 330 quite a bit, so they should at least be interested in its future direction. Thoughtworks I don't recall them to be involved and Martin Fowler himself told me of his "allergy" against such form of standardization, so I would not count on them here either. So assuming a separate @Inject spec shall be maintained there are 3 options: 1. Bob Lee (or the other Spec Lead) responds in a timely manner to contact attempts by Antoine and ultimately the PMO (who needs to handle such situations) in which case a simple MR was possible 2. A replacement of Maintenance Lead, along the lines of https://jcp.org/ja/introduction/faq-speclead#slresigns (it is rarely the case for an MR, but should work pretty much the same way here, so the main candidates to replace a Spec Lead would be in that EG, hence Red Hat, IBM or Oracle for most part;-) If such condition can't be resolved, both PMO and JCP EC would be able to help find a suitable replacement, too 3. A whole new JSR is filed. Although it is often the case that the Spec Lead(s) are the same, that is not necessary, especially if the old ones moved on or can't do this any more right now. HTH, Werner On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Kito Mann <kito-public(a)virtua.com&gt; wrote: My $0.02 is that it's worth the effort to evolve JSR-330 for the community as a whole. I've been on projects where they tend to use those annotations even in a CDI environment, and it makes it much easier to switch between Spring and CDI if necessary. > > > >On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: > >Hi all, >> >>Since the first mention of CDI 2.0 preparation work, we've received a lot of comment about JSR 330 evolution. With the release of the proposal draft yesterday, this topic came up again. So let me give my point of view on this subject to have an open discussion here. >> >>When we started to discuss about modularity with Pete in last november, my first idea was to go see what we could add in JSR 330 to make it a true specification that could be the first module of CDI. My idea at that time was to discuss with JSR 330 owner to see if we could bring basic concept we have in CDI to AtInject spec. In my mind the main features would have been: >> - Enhance the javax.inject.Provider<T> interface to bring it at the same level than javax.enterprise.inject.Instance<T>. That would have included support for AnnotationLiteral and TypeLiteral as well >> - Add a Container interface (a very light BeanManger) in JSR 330 to be able to resolve beans instance from outside managed beans >> - Add a mechanism to get this Container from non managed beans (like we get access to BeanManager from JNDI or CDI class) >> >>At that time, I contacted Bob Lee without success (didn’t tried Pivotal since I don’t have contact there). I checked with JCP what could be done if we’d like to see an evolution of JSR 330 and the owner doesn’t care, there seems to have solutions but I let it aside since we were in the middle of CDI 1.2 MR at that time. >> >>Today I’m a bit torn about this point. Working on opening JSR 330 could be like opening pandora box, since I see 2 scenarios : >> >>1) former JSR 330 owners wake up and are ok to get for a new spec version they lead: >>Knowing the history of JSR 330 vs JSR 299 I’m not sure everything we’d need would be heard and even if the people leading this would be cooperative, a lot of discussion and negotiation would be needed to be sure that this new AtInject wouldn’t contain features incompatible with CDI. So it’d be very time consuming with no guarantee to get what we’d need at the end. >> >>2) former JSR 330 owner don’t mind others take ownership of their spec to enhance it and we (Red Hat) are the one to take this ownership to secure CDI: >>The best solution to minimize risk. But leading a new specification is a lot more work than just deciding that we have a specific basic inject « part » in  CDI 2.0. Leading a spec is very time consuming, so it could be better on the paper but will impact CDI 2.0 new features. >> >>To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) >> >>Your input, solutions or comment would be appreciated on this point. >> >>Antoine >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>cdi-dev mailing list &gt;&gt;cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >> > _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev

The "Spec" and its Software Manifestation (normally all artifacts

under "javax.something" or "java.something" (for the few JSRs

like 310 that changed their package name in the course of

the lifecycle) in Oracle's (the PMO) understanding is under

the Spec License.

Just see Java EE 7: http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/

the JavaDoc (for all JSRs within that umbrella)

is therefore covered by the EE 7 Spec License >Copyright © 1996-2013, Oracle and/or its affiliates.

All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms.

CDI refrains from this breach. At least there is no contradicting JavaDoc license pointer.

I must correct you in the sense, that the license (that "Accept and Download" page) for the Spec is not Apache, though there is practically no spec here for these 6 annotations. So it is a bit of a grey zone, and even EC Members with a large legal department are in ongoing discussions over that. The "Spec" and its Software Manifestation (normally all artifacts under "javax.something" or "java.something" (for the few JSRs like 310 that changed their package name in the course of the lifecycle) in Oracle's (the PMO) understanding is under the Spec License.  So strictly speaking annotations under "javax.inject" are the "Spec", not RI or TCK, and therefore they don't fall under Apache 2. Google Guice and the TCK did and still do. Looking at JSRs like 107 https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec or 354, you'll notice they all have this in common.  Especially the JavaDoc as manifestation of the  Spec (and for 330 that is all there is of a Spec) therefore naturally fall under the Spec License, too.  Just see Java EE 7: http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/ the JavaDoc (for all JSRs within that umbrella) is therefore covered by the EE 7 Spec License >Copyright © 1996-2013, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms. see the link under "license terms" JSR 352 poses a stubbern dilemma as its EG and Spec Leads insist on a different license footer in the standalone distribution (Apache 2) as in the overall Java EE 7 umbrella. Which is a nightmare for users, a reason I voted against the MR or abstained from this particular JSR as it denies what is reality at least for the Spec and artifacts like the JavaDoc. CDI refrains from this breach. At least there is no contradicting JavaDoc license pointer.  Red Hat considers a "Dual Licensing" option for the Spec, but from all I heard so far, this is not how Oracle and the JCP PMO (or at least Oracle's lawyers) see this. With the proposal of the ULA Oracle tries to get all future JSRs to use a single license for RI and TCK. There's an ongoing discussion over details, but unless Oracle's legal department and PMO make a dramatic turn on these matters, JSRs filed in the near future (including CDI 2 or beyond) would likely fall under Spec and ULA license. Cheers, Werner On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; wrote: As far as I know the history (and I have been tracking and contributing to JSR-330 back then) most of the people were fed up _because_ they got pushed to change the license from ALv2 to something else (cannot remember anymore what exactly). > > >The original Apache v2 licensed work can be found here: >https://code.google.com/p/atinject/ > > > >I have no clue why Oracle  added the 'accept license' radio button on their JSR-330 download page. Maybe just a copy&paste error? The text in this license window is in fact not ALv2 but something else which is wrong information at best.  > > >The good news: ALL the assets in JSR-330 still are ALv2! >Thus anyone can take it and enhance it.  >Of course it would be good to have Bob and Jürgen on board, but legally it might not even be necessary. > > >LieGrue, >strub > > > > > >On Thursday, 3 July 2014, 17:35, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > >> >> >>I guess with only 5 or 6 annotations (and that's all the JSR consists of;-) if changing/improving only one or two of these was what's needed, this could be easiest as MR, otherwise 330 is history as it would require a new JSR. JSR 330 was under JCP 2.7 and for final JSRs they normally stay there, I don't think it can move to a newer version of the JCP: https://jcp.org/en/resources/guide-maintenance#2_7 >> >> >> >>The trouble is, both Spec Leads seem unresponsive or no longer around (Rod Johnson left Pivotal, Pivotal in its current form does not even seem JCP member and VMware may not be able or interested to step in for them) maybe Pete knows best if Bob was, as until JSR 364 or even a new version of the JSPA are finalized he could probably do it if he wants and has the time for this right now (especially if another JSR like CDI 2 depends on it, that can't be delayed even if this JSR may technically still be unaffected by JCP 2.8+)  >> >> >>Except for active corporate members Oracle, Red Hat or IBM the whole EG practically disintegrated. Doug Lea and Tim Peirls may be involved elsewhere (mostly OpenJDK from all I heard) but they have not been active in the JCP or active JSRs recently. Google, we heard gave up the Spec Lead in the first place, so it is unlikely under the current circumstances it will play an active role. Jason VanZyl and Maven I know they at least use JSR 330 quite a bit, so they should at least be interested in its future direction. Thoughtworks I don't recall them to be involved and Martin Fowler himself told me of his "allergy" against such form of standardization, so I would not count on them here either. >> >> >>So assuming a separate @Inject spec shall be maintained there are 3 options: >>    1. Bob Lee (or the other Spec Lead) responds in a timely manner to contact attempts by Antoine and ultimately the PMO (who needs to handle such situations) in which case a simple MR was possible >>    2. A replacement of Maintenance Lead, along the lines of https://jcp.org/ja/introduction/faq-speclead#slresigns (it is rarely the case for an MR, but should work pretty much the same way here, so the main candidates to replace a Spec Lead would be in that EG, hence Red Hat, IBM or Oracle for most part;-) If such condition can't be resolved, both PMO and JCP EC would be able to help find a suitable replacement, too >>    3. A whole new JSR is filed. Although it is often the case that the Spec Lead(s) are the same, that is not necessary, especially if the old ones moved on or can't do this any more right now. >>HTH, >>Werner >> >> >> >> >>On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Kito Mann <kito-public(a)virtua.com&gt; wrote: >> >>My $0.02 is that it's worth the effort to evolve JSR-330 for the community as a whole. I've been on projects where they tend to use those annotations even in a CDI environment, and it makes it much easier to switch between Spring and CDI if necessary. >>> >>> >>> >>>On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: >>> >>>Hi all, >>>> >>>>Since the first mention of CDI 2.0 preparation work, we've received a lot of comment about JSR 330 evolution. With the release of the proposal draft yesterday, this topic came up again. So let me give my point of view on this subject to have an open discussion here. >>>> >>>>When we started to discuss about modularity with Pete in last november, my first idea was to go see what we could add in JSR 330 to make it a true specification that could be the first module of CDI. My idea at that time was to discuss with JSR 330 owner to see if we could bring basic concept we have in CDI to AtInject spec. In my mind the main features would have been: >>>> - Enhance the javax.inject.Provider<T> interface to bring it at the same level than javax.enterprise.inject.Instance<T>. That would have included support for AnnotationLiteral and TypeLiteral as well >>>> - Add a Container interface (a very light BeanManger) in JSR 330 to be able to resolve beans instance from outside managed beans >>>> - Add a mechanism to get this Container from non managed beans (like we get access to BeanManager from JNDI or CDI class) >>>> >>>>At that time, I contacted Bob Lee without success (didn’t tried Pivotal since I don’t have contact there). I checked with JCP what could be done if we’d like to see an evolution of JSR 330 and the owner doesn’t care, there seems to have solutions but I let it aside since we were in the middle of CDI 1.2 MR at that time. >>>> >>>>Today I’m a bit torn about this point. Working on opening JSR 330 could be like opening pandora box, since I see 2 scenarios : >>>> >>>>1) former JSR 330 owners wake up and are ok to get for a new spec version they lead: >>>>Knowing the history of JSR 330 vs JSR 299 I’m not sure everything we’d need would be heard and even if the people leading this would be cooperative, a lot of discussion and negotiation would be needed to be sure that this new AtInject wouldn’t contain features incompatible with CDI. So it’d be very time consuming with no guarantee to get what we’d need at the end. >>>> >>>>2) former JSR 330 owner don’t mind others take ownership of their spec to enhance it and we (Red Hat) are the one to take this ownership to secure CDI: >>>>The best solution to minimize risk. But leading a new specification is a lot more work than just deciding that we have a specific basic inject « part » in  CDI 2.0. Leading a spec is very time consuming, so it could be better on the paper but will impact CDI 2.0 new features. >>>> >>>>To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) >>>> >>>>Your input, solutions or comment would be appreciated on this point. >>>> >>>>Antoine >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>cdi-dev mailing list &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >>>> >>> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>cdi-dev mailing list &gt;&gt;cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >> >>

Most of this remains to be discussed by a dedicated IP WG of JSR 358. Which I ocasionally join and if you (or others here) have particular interest, transparency means pretty much everything, especially minutes, etc. is available also to those outside the WG or EC. On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; wrote: Hi! > > > >> The "Spec" and its Software Manifestation (normally all artifacts > >> under "javax.something" or "java.something" (for the few JSRs > >> like 310 that changed their package name in the course of > >> the lifecycle) in Oracle's (the PMO) understanding is under > >> the Spec License. > > >Werner, this might be Oracles understanding, but to me and many legally trained colleagues it still seems factually wrong from a purely legal aspect. > >If I write something under ALv2 and contribute it to the JCP under ALv2, then no one (but me) has the right to change this license without asking me. Not even Oracle. Also the JSPA only talks about sublicensing (which does NOT include re-licensing under a different license!) and even explicitly says 'same license'. It does _not_ say _which_ license, it only defines (in §5E) "terms and conditions that are non-discriminatory, fair and reasonable". > > >It surely does not allow Sun/Oracle to re-license the original ALv2 work of JSR-330 (and other specs) with any other license. And it also doesn't matter what Oracle defines as 'Spec'. The important legal definition is the term 'work' which is used throughout almost all OSS licenses. And if Oracle provides a download with a zip which only contains ALv2 licensed 'work', then it also must prompt this license on their download page - and not any other license which no single piece of the downloaded archive is licensed under. You can check Androids 'system config -> licenses' page to see how this is done ;)  > > JSR 330 Spec was never ALv2 licensed, see The RI and TCK will be licensed under the Apache 2 license, and the Specification will be licensed under an agreement that satisfies the requirements of the JSPA. under https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=330   The "agreement that satisfies the requirements of the JSPA" is the Spec License.  >If you find such a paragraph which would allow such a re-licensing then please tell me. > > There isn't any, again, Oracle has never said there would be any other license than the Spec License for these materials, even if you download "jsr XXX.jar" from a different place other than jcp.org.   >Oracle would have had to refuse that spec and force the EG to pick another one. But now this is too late. This ship has pretty much sailed. Changing or 'reinterpreting' this work as under some different license is simply breaking a law. > > > >>Just see Java EE 7: http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/ > >> the JavaDoc (for all JSRs within that umbrella) > >> is therefore covered by the EE 7 Spec License >>>Copyright © 1996-2013, Oracle and/or its affiliates. > >> All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms. > >Which is again factually wrong imo! > >I can also copy random files from the internet and claim that I own all the copyrights. >It gets a bit more complex when we go into the legal details. On the one hand JavaDoc is always more complicated as the 'work' of bringing it into a nice representation might constitute own Copyright. And this is also fine as ALv2 allows to add your own 'work' in any license you like. But (often misinterpreted even by lawyers) ALv2 does NOT allow re-licensing: the original work (the parts which were ALv2) are STILL ALv2. This is btw almost always the case - this is what eventual Contributor License Agreements are for... > >It might also be that the 'collection of work' creates an own originary copyright. Like a prose book might constitute own IP _in addition_ to the original IP. But this 'collection IP' doesn't change the 'meat' content of javax.inject for example as explained above. > > > >>CDI refrains from this breach. At least there is no contradicting JavaDoc license pointer. > > >Again wrong: https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/blob/master/api/src/main/java/javax/enter... >Clearly ALv2... >And Oracle also cannot force JBoss to amend or change this license easily. JBoss would have to go to EVERY contributor and ask for permission! > > > The license headers in Java files are irrelevant in reality, and nobody (especially not the EC or PMO) cares about them. They are interested in a single license text provided with the JCP page, and again, for CDI you'll find the same as for JSR 330 or others.. Even in the IP savvy circles, people tend to mix up what's "Spec/API" and what's "RI/TCK". IMHO the likes of JSR 107 got this pretty right, also 354 and a few others.  Look into each class if you want and you'll find a pointer to the Spec License or a short version.  The API is often ignored or misunderstood, but the JSPA is pretty clear about it, though it was phrased with strong emphasis on the JVM itself: 1.10 Java Specification (Specification or Spec): a written specification for some aspect of the Java technology. This includes the language, virtual machine, Platform Editions, Profiles, andapplication programming interfaces. https://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/JSPA2.pdf I assume almost every one of you here signed it, or had your HR/legal department do;-) "application programming interfaces" - API meaning, the JSPA considers them to be part of the Spec under the subsequent license, but the sentence is so vague, that I'm sure, you'll find 3 different oppinions or interpretations if you just ask enough lawyers;-) >Btw, I've talked with a few lawyers who reviewed ULA and they did all not sound happy about it... > > > >I also got a bunch of weird answers from Oracle lawyers, e.g. that we must not do a RI which is ALv2, EPL, OSGI, etc because 'they are not compatible with the licenses we use in Glassfish'. >Totally sick argument. If that would be true than Oracle would need to remove 50 jars from Glassfish4, including >* Weld >* Eclipselink >* all OSGi >* Tomcat (yes, core-web.jar is nothing but a repackaged tomcat) > >* JNDI (org.apache.naming) >to just name a few. > > >Would this make sense? Do we really like to go down this route? > > >To make it clear: Glassfish is dual licensed as CDDL and GPL+CPE. And exactly the ClassPathException is the case why EPL and ALv2 jars inside Glassfish are totally fine and this legal info we got from Oracle legal is imo nuts. > > > Look into OpenJDK and especially the whole of the (additional) java.time APIs contain BSD licensed material, despite the fact, that JDK as such is licensed under different agreements. I asked the people in the EC and IP WG discussing these things, and only Azul (not a lawyer but also caring a lot about IP) said their understanding was, it should be OK for "Non EG Members" to contribute this under BSD, but EG Members should have contributed all of that either under the Spec License or the one by OpenJDK. None of the classes in question seem to ever have been touched by anybody other than the Spec Leads as there was no other contribution when 310 was still in places like GitHub or SF.net.   >I know there is tons of legal b******t going round these days. But repeating it over and over again doesn't make it more true... > >If you think I have an error in my argumentation then please feel free to correct me and help me understand the problem. > > > I think I'd have to leave that to people in the IP circles or legal team of either Oracle, IBM, Red Hat or others, as soon as they find a common understanding about it;-D   LieGrue, >strub > > > > Cheers, Werner   >On Thursday, 3 July 2014, 20:33, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>I must correct you in the sense, that the license (that "Accept and Download" page) for the Spec is not Apache, though there is practically no spec here for these 6 annotations. >>So it is a bit of a grey zone, and even EC Members with a large legal department are in ongoing discussions over that. The "Spec" and its Software Manifestation (normally all artifacts under "javax.something" or "java.something" (for the few JSRs like 310 that changed their package name in the course of the lifecycle) in Oracle's (the PMO) understanding is under the Spec License.  >> >> >>So strictly speaking annotations under "javax.inject" are the "Spec", not RI or TCK, and therefore they don't fall under Apache 2. Google Guice and the TCK did and still do. >> >> >>Looking at JSRs like 107 https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec or 354, you'll notice they all have this in common.  >>Especially the JavaDoc as manifestation of the  Spec (and for 330 that is all there is of a Spec) therefore naturally fall under the Spec License, too.  >> >> >>Just see Java EE 7: http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/ the JavaDoc (for all JSRs within that umbrella) is therefore covered by the EE 7 Spec License >>>Copyright © 1996-2013, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms. >> >>see the link under "license terms" >> >> >>JSR 352 poses a stubbern dilemma as its EG and Spec Leads insist on a different license footer in the standalone distribution (Apache 2) as in the overall Java EE 7 umbrella. >>Which is a nightmare for users, a reason I voted against the MR or abstained from this particular JSR as it denies what is reality at least for the Spec and artifacts like the JavaDoc. >> >> >>CDI refrains from this breach. At least there is no contradicting JavaDoc license pointer.  >> >> >>Red Hat considers a "Dual Licensing" option for the Spec, but from all I heard so far, this is not how Oracle and the JCP PMO (or at least Oracle's lawyers) see this. With the proposal of the ULA Oracle tries to get all future JSRs to use a single license for RI and TCK. >> >> >>There's an ongoing discussion over details, but unless Oracle's legal department and PMO make a dramatic turn on these matters, JSRs filed in the near future (including CDI 2 or beyond) would likely fall under Spec and ULA license. >> >> >>Cheers, >>Werner >> >> >>On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; wrote: >> >>As far as I know the history (and I have been tracking and contributing to JSR-330 back then) most of the people were fed up _because_ they got pushed to change the license from ALv2 to something else (cannot remember anymore what exactly). >>> >>> >>>The original Apache v2 licensed work can be found here: >>>https://code.google.com/p/atinject/ >>> >>> >>> >>>I have no clue why Oracle  added the 'accept license' radio button on their JSR-330 download page. Maybe just a copy&paste error? The text in this license window is in fact not ALv2 but something else which is wrong information at best.  >>> >>> >>>The good news: ALL the assets in JSR-330 still are ALv2! >>>Thus anyone can take it and enhance it.  >>>Of course it would be good to have Bob and Jürgen on board, but legally it might not even be necessary. >>> >>> >>>LieGrue, >>>strub >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On Thursday, 3 July 2014, 17:35, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>I guess with only 5 or 6 annotations (and that's all the JSR consists of;-) if changing/improving only one or two of these was what's needed, this could be easiest as MR, otherwise 330 is history as it would require a new JSR. JSR 330 was under JCP 2.7 and for final JSRs they normally stay there, I don't think it can move to a newer version of the JCP: https://jcp.org/en/resources/guide-maintenance#2_7 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>The trouble is, both Spec Leads seem unresponsive or no longer around (Rod Johnson left Pivotal, Pivotal in its current form does not even seem JCP member and VMware may not be able or interested to step in for them) maybe Pete knows best if Bob was, as until JSR 364 or even a new version of the JSPA are finalized he could probably do it if he wants and has the time for this right now (especially if another JSR like CDI 2 depends on it, that can't be delayed even if this JSR may technically still be unaffected by JCP 2.8+)  >>>> >>>> >>>>Except for active corporate members Oracle, Red Hat or IBM the whole EG practically disintegrated. Doug Lea and Tim Peirls may be involved elsewhere (mostly OpenJDK from all I heard) but they have not been active in the JCP or active JSRs recently. Google, we heard gave up the Spec Lead in the first place, so it is unlikely under the current circumstances it will play an active role. Jason VanZyl and Maven I know they at least use JSR 330 quite a bit, so they should at least be interested in its future direction. Thoughtworks I don't recall them to be involved and Martin Fowler himself told me of his "allergy" against such form of standardization, so I would not count on them here either. >>>> >>>> >>>>So assuming a separate @Inject spec shall be maintained there are 3 options: >>>>    1. Bob Lee (or the other Spec Lead) responds in a timely manner to contact attempts by Antoine and ultimately the PMO (who needs to handle such situations) in which case a simple MR was possible >>>>    2. A replacement of Maintenance Lead, along the lines of https://jcp.org/ja/introduction/faq-speclead#slresigns (it is rarely the case for an MR, but should work pretty much the same way here, so the main candidates to replace a Spec Lead would be in that EG, hence Red Hat, IBM or Oracle for most part;-) If such condition can't be resolved, both PMO and JCP EC would be able to help find a suitable replacement, too >>>>    3. A whole new JSR is filed. Although it is often the case that the Spec Lead(s) are the same, that is not necessary, especially if the old ones moved on or can't do this any more right now. > >>>>HTH, >>>>Werner >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Kito Mann <kito-public(a)virtua.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>>My $0.02 is that it's worth the effort to evolve JSR-330 for the community as a whole. I've been on projects where they tend to use those annotations even in a CDI environment, and it makes it much easier to switch between Spring and CDI if necessary. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: >>>>> >>>>>Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>>Since the first mention of CDI 2.0 preparation work, we've received a lot of comment about JSR 330 evolution. With the release of the proposal draft yesterday, this topic came up again. So let me give my point of view on this subject to have an open discussion here. >>>>>> >>>>>>When we started to discuss about modularity with Pete in last november, my first idea was to go see what we could add in JSR 330 to make it a true specification that could be the first module of CDI. My idea at that time was to discuss with JSR 330 owner to see if we could bring basic concept we have in CDI to AtInject spec. In my mind the main features would have been: >>>>>> - Enhance the javax.inject.Provider<T> interface to bring it at the same level than javax.enterprise.inject.Instance<T>. That would have included support for AnnotationLiteral and TypeLiteral as well >>>>>> - Add a Container interface (a very light BeanManger) in JSR 330 to be able to resolve beans instance from outside managed beans >>>>>> - Add a mechanism to get this Container from non managed beans (like we get access to BeanManager from JNDI or CDI class) >>>>>> >>>>>>At that time, I contacted Bob Lee without success (didn’t tried Pivotal since I don’t have contact there). I checked with JCP what could be done if we’d like to see an evolution of JSR 330 and the owner doesn’t care, there seems to have solutions but I let it aside since we were in the middle of CDI 1.2 MR at that time. >>>>>> >>>>>>Today I’m a bit torn about this point. Working on opening JSR 330 could be like opening pandora box, since I see 2 scenarios : >>>>>> >>>>>>1) former JSR 330 owners wake up and are ok to get for a new spec version they lead: >>>>>>Knowing the history of JSR 330 vs JSR 299 I’m not sure everything we’d need would be heard and even if the people leading this would be cooperative, a lot of discussion and negotiation would be needed to be sure that this new AtInject wouldn’t contain features incompatible with CDI. So it’d be very time consuming with no guarantee to get what we’d need at the end. >>>>>> >>>>>>2) former JSR 330 owner don’t mind others take ownership of their spec to enhance it and we (Red Hat) are the one to take this ownership to secure CDI: >>>>>>The best solution to minimize risk. But leading a new specification is a lot more work than just deciding that we have a specific basic inject « part » in  CDI 2.0. Leading a spec is very time consuming, so it could be better on the paper but will impact CDI 2.0 new features. >>>>>> >>>>>>To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) >>>>>> >>>>>>Your input, solutions or comment would be appreciated on this point. >>>>>> >>>>>>Antoine >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>cdi-dev mailing list &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>cdi-dev mailing list &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >

Mark, I am in Vienna briefly for tomorrow's DemoCamp. Not sure, if you'll have time at such short notice, but feel free to come by tomorrow;-) It's far from "my legal understanding", but as only Individual Member who has been in the EC for some time now from "Sun" days to a "transition" phase if you want or time of inactivity till today, I am among those who need to attend meetings and other responsibilities myself, as there is no "deputy" or "proxy" for Individual Members;-) The JSPA itself does not describe the license, but for the Spec there is only one license, see https://jcp.org/ja/resources/license_reference. The "choice" (also a bit outdated, but Apache was there already) is for RI/TCK, for the Spec it says "the PMO will help" and there's even the notion of "your own license". That has mostly been applied to J2ME licenses, with the effect, that some JSRs including the old Sensor API for J2ME (JSR 256, which a few "requirements" apply to JSR 363, but we certainly won't use anything else) had license constructions so complicated and weird, even Oracle's own lawyers did not want to go there and simply abandoned such JSRs not just from a technical point of view;-D I won't name anybody, but there are several fellow EC members who openly admit, "looking at the code" is not their priority, so I think that answers your question if the LICENCE.txt and license cover page of a Spec document matters to them or license headers in source files?;-) Cheers, Werner On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; wrote: > Werner, maybe we can talk this over at a beer? It seems evident that our > different legal view points are way too far apart for sorting this out via > email? > > As an example I just like to quote from the respective JSP [1]: > "The Spec Lead will provide the EC with confirmation of the terms under > which the RI and TCK will be licensed at each review period." > > The JSPA does not define _the_ license. It just defines that the EG must > pick a propriat one. > > > Also it's really established thinking that basically ALL what counts are > the license headers in the respective source files. And the JavaDoc only > being a 'secondary byproduct'. This is nothing I did define and neither did > Oracle - this is established IP right. If Oracle lawyers see this different > then I would be really worried. > > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > [1] https://jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2_7 > > > > > > On Thursday, 3 July 2014, 23:17, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > > > > > > > >Most of this remains to be discussed by a dedicated IP WG of JSR 358. > Which I ocasionally join and if you (or others here) have particular > interest, transparency means pretty much everything, especially minutes, > etc. is available also to those outside the WG or EC. > > > > > > > >On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; > wrote: > > > >Hi! > >> > >> > >> > >>> The "Spec" and its Software Manifestation (normally all artifacts > >> > >>> under "javax.something" or "java.something" (for the few JSRs > >> > >>> like 310 that changed their package name in the course of > >> > >>> the lifecycle) in Oracle's (the PMO) understanding is under > >> > >>> the Spec License. > >> > >> > >>Werner, this might be Oracles understanding, but to me and many legally > trained colleagues it still seems factually wrong from a purely legal > aspect. > >> > >>If I write something under ALv2 and contribute it to the JCP under > ALv2, then no one (but me) has the right to change this license without > asking me. Not even Oracle. Also the JSPA only talks about sublicensing > (which does NOT include re-licensing under a different license!) and even > explicitly says 'same license'. It does _not_ say _which_ license, it only > defines (in §5E) "terms and conditions that are non-discriminatory, fair > and reasonable". > >> > >> > >>It surely does not allow Sun/Oracle to re-license the original ALv2 > work of JSR-330 (and other specs) with any other license. And it also > doesn't matter what Oracle defines as 'Spec'. The important legal > definition is the term 'work' which is used throughout almost all OSS > licenses. And if Oracle provides a download with a zip which only contains > ALv2 licensed 'work', then it also must prompt this license on their > download page - and not any other license which no single piece of the > downloaded archive is licensed under. You can check Androids 'system config > -> licenses' page to see how this is done ;) > >> > >> > > > > > >JSR 330 Spec was never ALv2 licensed, see > >The RI and TCK will be licensed under the Apache 2 license, and the > Specification will be licensed under an agreement that satisfies the > requirements of the JSPA. > > > > > > > >under https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=330 > > > >The "agreement that satisfies the requirements of the JSPA" is the Spec > License. > > > > > > > >>If you find such a paragraph which would allow such a re-licensing then > please tell me. > >> > >> > > > > > >There isn't any, again, Oracle has never said there would be any other > license than the Spec License for these materials, even if you download > "jsr XXX.jar" from a different place other than jcp.org. > > > > > >>Oracle would have had to refuse that spec and force the EG to pick > another one. But now this is too late. This ship has pretty much sailed. > Changing or 'reinterpreting' this work as under some different license is > simply breaking a law. > >> > >> > >> > >>>Just see Java EE 7: http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/ > >> > >>> the JavaDoc (for all JSRs within that umbrella) > >> > >>> is therefore covered by the EE 7 Spec License > >>>>Copyright © 1996-2013, Oracle and/or its affiliates. > >> > >>> All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms. > >> > >>Which is again factually wrong imo! > >> > >>I can also copy random files from the internet and claim that I own all > the copyrights. > >>It gets a bit more complex when we go into the legal details. On the > one hand JavaDoc is always more complicated as the 'work' of bringing it > into a nice representation might constitute own Copyright. And this is also > fine as ALv2 allows to add your own 'work' in any license you like. But > (often misinterpreted even by lawyers) ALv2 does NOT allow re-licensing: > the original work (the parts which were ALv2) are STILL ALv2. This is btw > almost always the case - this is what eventual Contributor License > Agreements are for... > >> > >>It might also be that the 'collection of work' creates an own originary > copyright. Like a prose book might constitute own IP _in addition_ to the > original IP. But this 'collection IP' doesn't change the 'meat' content of > javax.inject for example as explained above. > >> > >> > >> > >>>CDI refrains from this breach. At least there is no contradicting > JavaDoc license pointer. > >> > >> > >>Again wrong: > https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/blob/master/api/src/main/java/javax/enter... > >>Clearly ALv2... > >>And Oracle also cannot force JBoss to amend or change this license > easily. JBoss would have to go to EVERY contributor and ask for permission! > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >The license headers in Java files are irrelevant in reality, and nobody > (especially not the EC or PMO) cares about them. They are interested in a > single license text provided with the JCP page, and again, for CDI you'll > find the same as for JSR 330 or others.. > > > > > >Even in the IP savvy circles, people tend to mix up what's "Spec/API" > and what's "RI/TCK". IMHO the likes of JSR 107 got this pretty right, also > 354 and a few others. > >Look into each class if you want and you'll find a pointer to the Spec > License or a short version. > > > > > >The API is often ignored or misunderstood, but the JSPA is pretty clear > about it, though it was phrased with strong emphasis on the JVM itself: > > > > > >1.10 Java Specification (Specification or Spec): a written specification > for some aspect of the Java technology. > >This includes the language, virtual machine, Platform Editions, > Profiles, andapplication programming > >interfaces. > >https://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/JSPA2.pdf > > > > > > > >I assume almost every one of you here signed it, or had your HR/legal > department do;-) > > > > > >"application programming interfaces" - API meaning, the JSPA considers > them to be part of the Spec under the subsequent license, but the sentence > is so vague, that I'm sure, you'll find 3 different oppinions or > interpretations if you just ask enough lawyers;-) > > > > > > > >>Btw, I've talked with a few lawyers who reviewed ULA and they did all > not sound happy about it... > >> > >> > >> > >>I also got a bunch of weird answers from Oracle lawyers, e.g. that we > must not do a RI which is ALv2, EPL, OSGI, etc because 'they are not > compatible with the licenses we use in Glassfish'. > >>Totally sick argument. If that would be true than Oracle would need to > remove 50 jars from Glassfish4, including > >>* Weld > >>* Eclipselink > >>* all OSGi > >>* Tomcat (yes, core-web.jar is nothing but a repackaged tomcat) > >> > >>* JNDI (org.apache.naming) > >>to just name a few. > >> > >> > >>Would this make sense? Do we really like to go down this route? > >> > >> > >>To make it clear: Glassfish is dual licensed as CDDL and GPL+CPE. And > exactly the ClassPathException is the case why EPL and ALv2 jars inside > Glassfish are totally fine and this legal info we got from Oracle legal is > imo nuts. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >Look into OpenJDK and especially the whole of the (additional) java.time > APIs contain BSD licensed material, despite the fact, that JDK as such is > licensed under different agreements. I asked the people in the EC and IP WG > discussing these things, and only Azul (not a lawyer but also caring a lot > about IP) said their understanding was, it should be OK for "Non EG > Members" to contribute this under BSD, but EG Members should have > contributed all of that either under the Spec License or the one by > OpenJDK. None of the classes in question seem to ever have been touched by > anybody other than the Spec Leads as there was no other contribution when > 310 was still in places like GitHub or SF.net. > > > > > > > > > >>I know there is tons of legal b******t going round these days. But > repeating it over and over again doesn't make it more true... > >> > >>If you think I have an error in my argumentation then please feel free > to correct me and help me understand the problem. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >I think I'd have to leave that to people in the IP circles or legal team > of either Oracle, IBM, Red Hat or others, as soon as they find a common > understanding about it;-D > > > >LieGrue, > >>strub > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >Cheers, > >Werner > > > > > >>On Thursday, 3 July 2014, 20:33, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > >>>I must correct you in the sense, that the license (that "Accept and > Download" page) for the Spec is not Apache, though there is practically no > spec here for these 6 annotations. > >>>So it is a bit of a grey zone, and even EC Members with a large legal > department are in ongoing discussions over that. The "Spec" and its > Software Manifestation (normally all artifacts under "javax.something" or > "java.something" (for the few JSRs like 310 that changed their package name > in the course of the lifecycle) in Oracle's (the PMO) understanding is > under the Spec License. > >>> > >>> > >>>So strictly speaking annotations under "javax.inject" are the "Spec", > not RI or TCK, and therefore they don't fall under Apache 2. Google Guice > and the TCK did and still do. > >>> > >>> > >>>Looking at JSRs like 107 https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec or 354, > you'll notice they all have this in common. > >>>Especially the JavaDoc as manifestation of the Spec (and for 330 that > is all there is of a Spec) therefore naturally fall under the Spec License, > too. > >>> > >>> > >>>Just see Java EE 7: http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/ the JavaDoc > (for all JSRs within that umbrella) is therefore covered by the EE 7 Spec > License > >>>>Copyright © 1996-2013, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All Rights > Reserved. Use is subject to license terms. > >>> > >>>see the link under "license terms" > >>> > >>> > >>>JSR 352 poses a stubbern dilemma as its EG and Spec Leads insist on a > different license footer in the standalone distribution (Apache 2) as in > the overall Java EE 7 umbrella. > >>>Which is a nightmare for users, a reason I voted against the MR or > abstained from this particular JSR as it denies what is reality at least > for the Spec and artifacts like the JavaDoc. > >>> > >>> > >>>CDI refrains from this breach. At least there is no contradicting > JavaDoc license pointer. > >>> > >>> > >>>Red Hat considers a "Dual Licensing" option for the Spec, but from all > I heard so far, this is not how Oracle and the JCP PMO (or at least > Oracle's lawyers) see this. With the proposal of the ULA Oracle tries to > get all future JSRs to use a single license for RI and TCK. > >>> > >>> > >>>There's an ongoing discussion over details, but unless Oracle's legal > department and PMO make a dramatic turn on these matters, JSRs filed in the > near future (including CDI 2 or beyond) would likely fall under Spec and > ULA license. > >>> > >>> > >>>Cheers, > >>>Werner > >>> > >>> > >>>On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; > wrote: > >>> > >>>As far as I know the history (and I have been tracking and > contributing to JSR-330 back then) most of the people were fed up _because_ > they got pushed to change the license from ALv2 to something else (cannot > remember anymore what exactly). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>The original Apache v2 licensed work can be found here: > >>>>https://code.google.com/p/atinject/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>I have no clue why Oracle added the 'accept license' radio button on > their JSR-330 download page. Maybe just a copy&paste error? The text in > this license window is in fact not ALv2 but something else which is wrong > information at best. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>The good news: ALL the assets in JSR-330 still are ALv2! > >>>>Thus anyone can take it and enhance it. > >>>>Of course it would be good to have Bob and Jürgen on board, but > legally it might not even be necessary. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>LieGrue, > >>>>strub > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>On Thursday, 3 July 2014, 17:35, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>I guess with only 5 or 6 annotations (and that's all the JSR > consists of;-) if changing/improving only one or two of these was what's > needed, this could be easiest as MR, otherwise 330 is history as it would > require a new JSR. JSR 330 was under JCP 2.7 and for final JSRs they > normally stay there, I don't think it can move to a newer version of the > JCP: https://jcp.org/en/resources/guide-maintenance#2_7 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>The trouble is, both Spec Leads seem unresponsive or no longer > around (Rod Johnson left Pivotal, Pivotal in its current form does not even > seem JCP member and VMware may not be able or interested to step in for > them) maybe Pete knows best if Bob was, as until JSR 364 or even a new > version of the JSPA are finalized he could probably do it if he wants and > has the time for this right now (especially if another JSR like CDI 2 > depends on it, that can't be delayed even if this JSR may technically still > be unaffected by JCP 2.8+) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Except for active corporate members Oracle, Red Hat or IBM the whole > EG practically disintegrated. Doug Lea and Tim Peirls may be involved > elsewhere (mostly OpenJDK from all I heard) but they have not been active > in the JCP or active JSRs recently. Google, we heard gave up the Spec Lead > in the first place, so it is unlikely under the current circumstances it > will play an active role. Jason VanZyl and Maven I know they at least use > JSR 330 quite a bit, so they should at least be interested in its future > direction. Thoughtworks I don't recall them to be involved and Martin > Fowler himself told me of his "allergy" against such form of > standardization, so I would not count on them here either. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>So assuming a separate @Inject spec shall be maintained there are 3 > options: > >>>>> 1. Bob Lee (or the other Spec Lead) responds in a timely manner > to contact attempts by Antoine and ultimately the PMO (who needs to handle > such situations) in which case a simple MR was possible > >>>>> 2. A replacement of Maintenance Lead, along the lines of > https://jcp.org/ja/introduction/faq-speclead#slresigns (it is rarely the > case for an MR, but should work pretty much the same way here, so the main > candidates to replace a Spec Lead would be in that EG, hence Red Hat, IBM > or Oracle for most part;-) If such condition can't be resolved, both PMO > and JCP EC would be able to help find a suitable replacement, too > >>>>> 3. A whole new JSR is filed. Although it is often the case that > the Spec Lead(s) are the same, that is not necessary, especially if the old > ones moved on or can't do this any more right now. > >> > >>>>>HTH, > >>>>>Werner > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Kito Mann <kito-public(a)virtua.com&gt; > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>My $0.02 is that it's worth the effort to evolve JSR-330 for the > community as a whole. I've been on projects where they tend to use those > annotations even in a CDI environment, and it makes it much easier to > switch between Spring and CDI if necessary. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand < > antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Hi all, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Since the first mention of CDI 2.0 preparation work, we've > received a lot of comment about JSR 330 evolution. With the release of the > proposal draft yesterday, this topic came up again. So let me give my point > of view on this subject to have an open discussion here. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>When we started to discuss about modularity with Pete in last > november, my first idea was to go see what we could add in JSR 330 to make > it a true specification that could be the first module of CDI. My idea at > that time was to discuss with JSR 330 owner to see if we could bring basic > concept we have in CDI to AtInject spec. In my mind the main features would > have been: > >>>>>>> - Enhance the javax.inject.Provider<T> interface to bring it at > the same level than javax.enterprise.inject.Instance<T>. That would have > included support for AnnotationLiteral and TypeLiteral as well > >>>>>>> - Add a Container interface (a very light BeanManger) in JSR 330 > to be able to resolve beans instance from outside managed beans > >>>>>>> - Add a mechanism to get this Container from non managed beans > (like we get access to BeanManager from JNDI or CDI class) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>At that time, I contacted Bob Lee without success (didn’t tried > Pivotal since I don’t have contact there). I checked with JCP what could be > done if we’d like to see an evolution of JSR 330 and the owner doesn’t > care, there seems to have solutions but I let it aside since we were in the > middle of CDI 1.2 MR at that time. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Today I’m a bit torn about this point. Working on opening JSR 330 > could be like opening pandora box, since I see 2 scenarios : > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>1) former JSR 330 owners wake up and are ok to get for a new spec > version they lead: > >>>>>>>Knowing the history of JSR 330 vs JSR 299 I’m not sure everything > we’d need would be heard and even if the people leading this would be > cooperative, a lot of discussion and negotiation would be needed to be sure > that this new AtInject wouldn’t contain features incompatible with CDI. So > it’d be very time consuming with no guarantee to get what we’d need at the > end. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>2) former JSR 330 owner don’t mind others take ownership of their > spec to enhance it and we (Red Hat) are the one to take this ownership to > secure CDI: > >>>>>>>The best solution to minimize risk. But leading a new > specification is a lot more work than just deciding that we have a specific > basic inject « part » in CDI 2.0. Leading a spec is very time consuming, > so it could be better on the paper but will impact CDI 2.0 new features. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d > be happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it > could lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on > AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Your input, solutions or comment would be appreciated on this > point. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Antoine > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>_______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>cdi-dev mailing list > &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > >>>>>>>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>_______________________________________________ > >>>>>cdi-dev mailing list > &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > >>>>>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >

Von: Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; Datum: Friday 4 July 2014 00:46 An: Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; Cc: Reza Rahman <reza.rahman(a)oracle.com&gt;, Arun Gupta <arungupta(a)redhat.com&gt;, Badr Elhouari <badr.elhouari(a)gmail.com&gt;, Adam Bien <abien(a)adam-bien.com&gt;, CDI-Dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt;, Eisele Markus <Markus(a)eisele.net&gt; Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] About JSR 330.Next and CDI 2.0 >In a majority of cases, not just Oracle but also other vendors from a >legal point still live and practice a "Shrinkwrap mindset", so the only >license that counts is the one you see when you "open the box". Or >download artifacts from JCP or a similar place. Well, this might be their mindset. However European IP law treats this quite different and has a strict understanding for doing so (I avoid the c-word here on purpose). I assume US IP law is quite similar in this regard - especially in the area of author/copyright owner rights, exploitation rights, etc. I am not familiar with JCP/EC/Oracle/Sun/... internals. Nevertheless I have been in a legal battle that covered both source code disclaimers and "intended contractual purpose that lead to the source". Since both did not match at some point we had to exchange arguments via lawyers. And - at no surprise - it turned out that European/German IP law is pretty simple and works just like Mark wrote in his mails before;). Of course there are issues if source code is created as an result of an specification process (say - paper was first). However it won¹t break source code copyrights and attached licenses, particularly in the case of JSR-330. Let¹s hope things can be sorted out without lawyers, Jens

The CDI spec lead (Red Hat)’s official position for the CDI specification is clearly covered on http://www.cdi-spec.org/download/ If you have any questions regarding this, you will need to contact Red Hat legal. On 3 Jul 2014, at 19:33, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > I must correct you in the sense, that the license (that "Accept and Download" page) for the Spec is not Apache, though there is practically no spec here for these 6 annotations. > So it is a bit of a grey zone, and even EC Members with a large legal department are in ongoing discussions over that. The "Spec" and its Software Manifestation (normally all artifacts under "javax.something" or "java.something" (for the few JSRs like 310 that changed their package name in the course of the lifecycle) in Oracle's (the PMO) understanding is under the Spec License. > > So strictly speaking annotations under "javax.inject" are the "Spec", not RI or TCK, and therefore they don't fall under Apache 2. Google Guice and the TCK did and still do. > > Looking at JSRs like 107 https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec or 354, you'll notice they all have this in common. > Especially the JavaDoc as manifestation of the Spec (and for 330 that is all there is of a Spec) therefore naturally fall under the Spec License, too. > > Just see Java EE 7: http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/ the JavaDoc (for all JSRs within that umbrella) is therefore covered by the EE 7 Spec License > >Copyright © 1996-2013, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms. > see the link under "license terms"<329.gif> > > JSR 352 poses a stubbern dilemma as its EG and Spec Leads insist on a different license footer in the standalone distribution (Apache 2) as in the overall Java EE 7 umbrella. > Which is a nightmare for users, a reason I voted against the MR or abstained from this particular JSR as it denies what is reality at least for the Spec and artifacts like the JavaDoc. > > CDI refrains from this breach. At least there is no contradicting JavaDoc license pointer. > > Red Hat considers a "Dual Licensing" option for the Spec, but from all I heard so far, this is not how Oracle and the JCP PMO (or at least Oracle's lawyers) see this. > With the proposal of the ULA Oracle tries to get all future JSRs to use a single license for RI and TCK. > > There's an ongoing discussion over details, but unless Oracle's legal department and PMO make a dramatic turn on these matters, JSRs filed in the near future (including CDI 2 or beyond) would likely fall under Spec and ULA license. > > Cheers, > Werner > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; wrote: > As far as I know the history (and I have been tracking and contributing to JSR-330 back then) most of the people were fed up _because_ they got pushed to change the license from ALv2 to something else (cannot remember anymore what exactly). > > The original Apache v2 licensed work can be found here: > https://code.google.com/p/atinject/ > > I have no clue why Oracle added the 'accept license' radio button on their JSR-330 download page. Maybe just a copy&paste error? The text in this license window is in fact not ALv2 but something else which is wrong information at best. > > The good news: ALL the assets in JSR-330 still are ALv2! > Thus anyone can take it and enhance it. > Of course it would be good to have Bob and Jürgen on board, but legally it might not even be necessary. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > On Thursday, 3 July 2014, 17:35, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > I guess with only 5 or 6 annotations (and that's all the JSR consists of;-) if changing/improving only one or two of these was what's needed, this could be easiest as MR, otherwise 330 is history as it would require a new JSR. JSR 330 was under JCP 2.7 and for final JSRs they normally stay there, I don't think it can move to a newer version of the JCP: https://jcp.org/en/resources/guide-maintenance#2_7 > > The trouble is, both Spec Leads seem unresponsive or no longer around (Rod Johnson left Pivotal, Pivotal in its current form does not even seem JCP member and VMware may not be able or interested to step in for them) maybe Pete knows best if Bob was, as until JSR 364 or even a new version of the JSPA are finalized he could probably do it if he wants and has the time for this right now (especially if another JSR like CDI 2 depends on it, that can't be delayed even if this JSR may technically still be unaffected by JCP 2.8+) > > Except for active corporate members Oracle, Red Hat or IBM the whole EG practically disintegrated. Doug Lea and Tim Peirls may be involved elsewhere (mostly OpenJDK from all I heard) but they have not been active in the JCP or active JSRs recently. Google, we heard gave up the Spec Lead in the first place, so it is unlikely under the current circumstances it will play an active role. Jason VanZyl and Maven I know they at least use JSR 330 quite a bit, so they should at least be interested in its future direction. Thoughtworks I don't recall them to be involved and Martin Fowler himself told me of his "allergy" against such form of standardization, so I would not count on them here either. > > So assuming a separate @Inject spec shall be maintained there are 3 options: > • Bob Lee (or the other Spec Lead) responds in a timely manner to contact attempts by Antoine and ultimately the PMO (who needs to handle such situations) in which case a simple MR was possible > • A replacement of Maintenance Lead, along the lines of https://jcp.org/ja/introduction/faq-speclead#slresigns (it is rarely the case for an MR, but should work pretty much the same way here, so the main candidates to replace a Spec Lead would be in that EG, hence Red Hat, IBM or Oracle for most part;-) If such condition can't be resolved, both PMO and JCP EC would be able to help find a suitable replacement, too > • A whole new JSR is filed. Although it is often the case that the Spec Lead(s) are the same, that is not necessary, especially if the old ones moved on or can't do this any more right now. > HTH, > Werner > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Kito Mann <kito-public(a)virtua.com&gt; wrote: > My $0.02 is that it's worth the effort to evolve JSR-330 for the community as a whole. I've been on projects where they tend to use those annotations even in a CDI environment, and it makes it much easier to switch between Spring and CDI if necessary. > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand < antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: > Hi all, > > Since the first mention of CDI 2.0 preparation work, we've received a lot of comment about JSR 330 evolution. With the release of the proposal draft yesterday, this topic came up again. So let me give my point of view on this subject to have an open discussion here. > > When we started to discuss about modularity with Pete in last november, my first idea was to go see what we could add in JSR 330 to make it a true specification that could be the first module of CDI. My idea at that time was to discuss with JSR 330 owner to see if we could bring basic concept we have in CDI to AtInject spec. In my mind the main features would have been: > - Enhance the javax.inject.Provider<T> interface to bring it at the same level than javax.enterprise.inject.Instance<T>. That would have included support for AnnotationLiteral and TypeLiteral as well > - Add a Container interface (a very light BeanManger) in JSR 330 to be able to resolve beans instance from outside managed beans > - Add a mechanism to get this Container from non managed beans (like we get access to BeanManager from JNDI or CDI class) > > At that time, I contacted Bob Lee without success (didn’t tried Pivotal since I don’t have contact there). I checked with JCP what could be done if we’d like to see an evolution of JSR 330 and the owner doesn’t care, there seems to have solutions but I let it aside since we were in the middle of CDI 1.2 MR at that time. > > Today I’m a bit torn about this point. Working on opening JSR 330 could be like opening pandora box, since I see 2 scenarios : > > 1) former JSR 330 owners wake up and are ok to get for a new spec version they lead: > Knowing the history of JSR 330 vs JSR 299 I’m not sure everything we’d need would be heard and even if the people leading this would be cooperative, a lot of discussion and negotiation would be needed to be sure that this new AtInject wouldn’t contain features incompatible with CDI. So it’d be very time consuming with no guarantee to get what we’d need at the end. > > 2) former JSR 330 owner don’t mind others take ownership of their spec to enhance it and we (Red Hat) are the one to take this ownership to secure CDI: > The best solution to minimize risk. But leading a new specification is a lot more work than just deciding that we have a specific basic inject « part » in CDI 2.0. Leading a spec is very time consuming, so it could be better on the paper but will impact CDI 2.0 new features. > > To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) > > Your input, solutions or comment would be appreciated on this point. > > Antoine > > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev

Imo the CDI spec is clean in this regard.

It mentions the evaluation license in the pdf itself and also points out that the RI, TCK and API is ALv2. Nothing to complain. I'd also like to remember where all this discussion started: That it is GOOD that the JSR-330 artifacts (which do not contain a separate spec pdf paper) are all ALv2 and thus we are lucky to be able to just maintain this in a new JSR. The other questions regarding JSR-330 is JCP politics... LieGrue, strub On Friday, 4 July 2014, 12:27, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: The CDI spec lead (Red Hat)’s official position for the CDI specification is clearly covered on http://www.cdi-spec.org/download/ If you have any questions regarding this, you will need to contact Red Hat legal. On 3 Jul 2014, at 19:33, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > I must correct you in the sense, that the license (that "Accept and Download" page) for the Spec is not Apache, though there is practically no spec here for these 6 annotations. > So it is a bit of a grey zone, and even EC Members with a large legal department are in ongoing discussions over that. The "Spec" and its Software Manifestation (normally all artifacts under "javax.something" or "java.something" (for the few JSRs like 310 that changed their package name in the course of the lifecycle) in Oracle's (the PMO) understanding is under the Spec License. > > So strictly speaking annotations under "javax.inject" are the "Spec", not RI or TCK, and therefore they don't fall under Apache 2. Google Guice and the TCK did and still do. > > Looking at JSRs like 107 https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec or 354, you'll notice they all have this in common. > Especially the JavaDoc as manifestation of the Spec (and for 330 that is all there is of a Spec) therefore naturally fall under the Spec License, too. > > Just see Java EE 7: http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/ the JavaDoc (for all JSRs within that umbrella) is therefore covered by the EE 7 Spec License > >Copyright © 1996-2013, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms. > see the link under "license terms"<329.gif> > > JSR 352 poses a stubbern dilemma as its EG and Spec Leads insist on a different license footer in the standalone distribution (Apache 2) as in the overall Java EE 7 umbrella. > Which is a nightmare for users, a reason I voted against the MR or abstained from this particular JSR as it denies what is reality at least for the Spec and artifacts like the JavaDoc. > > CDI refrains from this breach. At least there is no contradicting JavaDoc license pointer. > > Red Hat considers a "Dual Licensing" option for the Spec, but from all I heard so far, this is not how Oracle and the JCP PMO (or at least Oracle's lawyers) see this. > With the proposal of the ULA Oracle tries to get all future JSRs to use a single license for RI and TCK. > > There's an ongoing discussion over details, but unless Oracle's legal department and PMO make a dramatic turn on these matters, JSRs filed in the near future (including CDI 2 or beyond) would likely fall under Spec and ULA license. > > Cheers, > Werner > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; wrote: > As far as I know the history (and I have been tracking and contributing to JSR-330 back then) most of the people were fed up _because_ they got pushed to change the license from ALv2 to something else (cannot remember anymore what exactly). > > The original Apache v2 licensed work can be found here: > https://code.google.com/p/atinject/ > > I have no clue why Oracle added the 'accept license' radio button on their JSR-330 download page. Maybe just a copy&paste error? The text in this license window is in fact not ALv2 but something else which is wrong information at best. > > The good news: ALL the assets in JSR-330 still are ALv2! > Thus anyone can take it and enhance it. > Of course it would be good to have Bob and Jürgen on board, but legally it might not even be necessary. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > On Thursday, 3 July 2014, 17:35, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > I guess with only 5 or 6 annotations (and that's all the JSR consists of;-) if changing/improving only one or two of these was what's needed, this could be easiest as MR, otherwise 330 is history as it would require a new JSR. JSR 330 was under JCP 2.7 and for final JSRs they normally stay there, I don't think it can move to a newer version of the JCP: https://jcp.org/en/resources/guide-maintenance#2_7 > > The trouble is, both Spec Leads seem unresponsive or no longer around (Rod Johnson left Pivotal, Pivotal in its current form does not even seem JCP member and VMware may not be able or interested to step in for them) maybe Pete knows best if Bob was, as until JSR 364 or even a new version of the JSPA are finalized he could probably do it if he wants and has the time for this right now (especially if another JSR like CDI 2 depends on it, that can't be delayed even if this JSR may technically still be unaffected by JCP 2.8+) > > Except for active corporate members Oracle, Red Hat or IBM the whole EG practically disintegrated. Doug Lea and Tim Peirls may be involved elsewhere (mostly OpenJDK from all I heard) but they have not been active in the JCP or active JSRs recently. Google, we heard gave up the Spec Lead in the first place, so it is unlikely under the current circumstances it will play an active role. Jason VanZyl and Maven I know they at least use JSR 330 quite a bit, so they should at least be interested in its future direction. Thoughtworks I don't recall them to be involved and Martin Fowler himself told me of his "allergy" against such form of standardization, so I would not count on them here either. > > So assuming a separate @Inject spec shall be maintained there are 3 options: > • Bob Lee (or the other Spec Lead) responds in a timely manner to contact attempts by Antoine and ultimately the PMO (who needs to handle such situations) in which case a simple MR was possible > • A replacement of Maintenance Lead, along the lines of https://jcp.org/ja/introduction/faq-speclead#slresigns (it is rarely the case for an MR, but should work pretty much the same way here, so the main candidates to replace a Spec Lead would be in that EG, hence Red Hat, IBM or Oracle for most part;-) If such condition can't be resolved, both PMO and JCP EC would be able to help find a suitable replacement, too > • A whole new JSR is filed. Although it is often the case that the Spec Lead(s) are the same, that is not necessary, especially if the old ones moved on or can't do this any more right now. > HTH, > Werner > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Kito Mann <kito-public(a)virtua.com&gt; wrote: > My $0.02 is that it's worth the effort to evolve JSR-330 for the community as a whole. I've been on projects where they tend to use those annotations even in a CDI environment, and it makes it much easier to switch between Spring and CDI if necessary. > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: > Hi all, > > Since the first mention of CDI 2.0 preparation work, we've received a lot of comment about JSR 330 evolution. With the release of the proposal draft yesterday, this topic came up again. So let me give my point of view on this subject to have an open discussion here. > > When we started to discuss about modularity with Pete in last november, my first idea was to go see what we could add in JSR 330 to make it a true specification that could be the first module of CDI. My idea at that time was to discuss with JSR 330 owner to see if we could bring basic concept we have in CDI to AtInject spec. In my mind the main features would have been: > - Enhance the javax.inject.Provider<T> interface to bring it at the same level than javax.enterprise.inject.Instance<T>. That would have included support for AnnotationLiteral and TypeLiteral as well > - Add a Container interface (a very light BeanManger) in JSR 330 to be able to resolve beans instance from outside managed beans > - Add a mechanism to get this Container from non managed beans (like we get access to BeanManager from JNDI or CDI class) > > At that time, I contacted Bob Lee without success (didn’t tried Pivotal since I don’t have contact there). I checked with JCP what could be done if we’d like to see an evolution of JSR 330 and the owner doesn’t care, there seems to have solutions but I let it aside since we were in the middle of CDI 1.2 MR at that time. > > Today I’m a bit torn about this point. Working on opening JSR 330 could be like opening pandora box, since I see 2 scenarios : > > 1) former JSR 330 owners wake up and are ok to get for a new spec version they lead: > Knowing the history of JSR 330 vs JSR 299 I’m not sure everything we’d need would be heard and even if the people leading this would be cooperative, a lot of discussion and negotiation would be needed to be sure that this new AtInject wouldn’t contain features incompatible with CDI. So it’d be very time consuming with no guarantee to get what we’d need at the end. > > 2) former JSR 330 owner don’t mind others take ownership of their spec to enhance it and we (Red Hat) are the one to take this ownership to secure CDI: > The best solution to minimize risk. But leading a new specification is a lot more work than just deciding that we have a specific basic inject « part » in CDI 2.0. Leading a spec is very time consuming, so it could be better on the paper but will impact CDI 2.0 new features. > > To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) > > Your input, solutions or comment would be appreciated on this point. > > Antoine > > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev

The CDI spec lead (Red Hat)’s official position for the CDI specification is clearly covered on http://www.cdi-spec.org/download/ If you have any questions regarding this, you will need to contact Red Hat legal. On 3 Jul 2014, at 19:33, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > I must correct you in the sense, that the license (that "Accept and Download" page) for the Spec is not Apache, though there is practically no spec here for these 6 annotations. > So it is a bit of a grey zone, and even EC Members with a large legal department are in ongoing discussions over that. The "Spec" and its Software Manifestation (normally all artifacts under "javax.something" or "java.something" (for the few JSRs like 310 that changed their package name in the course of the lifecycle) in Oracle's (the PMO) understanding is under the Spec License. > > So strictly speaking annotations under "javax.inject" are the "Spec", not RI or TCK, and therefore they don't fall under Apache 2. Google Guice and the TCK did and still do. > > Looking at JSRs like 107 https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec or 354, you'll notice they all have this in common. > Especially the JavaDoc as manifestation of the Spec (and for 330 that is all there is of a Spec) therefore naturally fall under the Spec License, too. > > Just see Java EE 7: http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/ the JavaDoc (for all JSRs within that umbrella) is therefore covered by the EE 7 Spec License > >Copyright © 1996-2013, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms. > see the link under "license terms"<329.gif> > > JSR 352 poses a stubbern dilemma as its EG and Spec Leads insist on a different license footer in the standalone distribution (Apache 2) as in the overall Java EE 7 umbrella. > Which is a nightmare for users, a reason I voted against the MR or abstained from this particular JSR as it denies what is reality at least for the Spec and artifacts like the JavaDoc. > > CDI refrains from this breach. At least there is no contradicting JavaDoc license pointer. > > Red Hat considers a "Dual Licensing" option for the Spec, but from all I heard so far, this is not how Oracle and the JCP PMO (or at least Oracle's lawyers) see this. > With the proposal of the ULA Oracle tries to get all future JSRs to use a single license for RI and TCK. > > There's an ongoing discussion over details, but unless Oracle's legal department and PMO make a dramatic turn on these matters, JSRs filed in the near future (including CDI 2 or beyond) would likely fall under Spec and ULA license. > > Cheers, > Werner > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; wrote: > As far as I know the history (and I have been tracking and contributing to JSR-330 back then) most of the people were fed up _because_ they got pushed to change the license from ALv2 to something else (cannot remember anymore what exactly). > > The original Apache v2 licensed work can be found here: > https://code.google.com/p/atinject/ > > I have no clue why Oracle added the 'accept license' radio button on their JSR-330 download page. Maybe just a copy&paste error? The text in this license window is in fact not ALv2 but something else which is wrong information at best. > > The good news: ALL the assets in JSR-330 still are ALv2! > Thus anyone can take it and enhance it. > Of course it would be good to have Bob and Jürgen on board, but legally it might not even be necessary. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > On Thursday, 3 July 2014, 17:35, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > I guess with only 5 or 6 annotations (and that's all the JSR consists of;-) if changing/improving only one or two of these was what's needed, this could be easiest as MR, otherwise 330 is history as it would require a new JSR. JSR 330 was under JCP 2.7 and for final JSRs they normally stay there, I don't think it can move to a newer version of the JCP: https://jcp.org/en/resources/guide-maintenance#2_7 > > The trouble is, both Spec Leads seem unresponsive or no longer around (Rod Johnson left Pivotal, Pivotal in its current form does not even seem JCP member and VMware may not be able or interested to step in for them) maybe Pete knows best if Bob was, as until JSR 364 or even a new version of the JSPA are finalized he could probably do it if he wants and has the time for this right now (especially if another JSR like CDI 2 depends on it, that can't be delayed even if this JSR may technically still be unaffected by JCP 2.8+) > > Except for active corporate members Oracle, Red Hat or IBM the whole EG practically disintegrated. Doug Lea and Tim Peirls may be involved elsewhere (mostly OpenJDK from all I heard) but they have not been active in the JCP or active JSRs recently. Google, we heard gave up the Spec Lead in the first place, so it is unlikely under the current circumstances it will play an active role. Jason VanZyl and Maven I know they at least use JSR 330 quite a bit, so they should at least be interested in its future direction. Thoughtworks I don't recall them to be involved and Martin Fowler himself told me of his "allergy" against such form of standardization, so I would not count on them here either. > > So assuming a separate @Inject spec shall be maintained there are 3 options: > • Bob Lee (or the other Spec Lead) responds in a timely manner to contact attempts by Antoine and ultimately the PMO (who needs to handle such situations) in which case a simple MR was possible > • A replacement of Maintenance Lead, along the lines of https://jcp.org/ja/introduction/faq-speclead#slresigns (it is rarely the case for an MR, but should work pretty much the same way here, so the main candidates to replace a Spec Lead would be in that EG, hence Red Hat, IBM or Oracle for most part;-) If such condition can't be resolved, both PMO and JCP EC would be able to help find a suitable replacement, too > • A whole new JSR is filed. Although it is often the case that the Spec Lead(s) are the same, that is not necessary, especially if the old ones moved on or can't do this any more right now. > HTH, > Werner > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Kito Mann <kito-public(a)virtua.com&gt; wrote: > My $0.02 is that it's worth the effort to evolve JSR-330 for the community as a whole. I've been on projects where they tend to use those annotations even in a CDI environment, and it makes it much easier to switch between Spring and CDI if necessary. > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand < antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: > Hi all, > > Since the first mention of CDI 2.0 preparation work, we've received a lot of comment about JSR 330 evolution. With the release of the proposal draft yesterday, this topic came up again. So let me give my point of view on this subject to have an open discussion here. > > When we started to discuss about modularity with Pete in last november, my first idea was to go see what we could add in JSR 330 to make it a true specification that could be the first module of CDI. My idea at that time was to discuss with JSR 330 owner to see if we could bring basic concept we have in CDI to AtInject spec. In my mind the main features would have been: > - Enhance the javax.inject.Provider<T> interface to bring it at the same level than javax.enterprise.inject.Instance<T>. That would have included support for AnnotationLiteral and TypeLiteral as well > - Add a Container interface (a very light BeanManger) in JSR 330 to be able to resolve beans instance from outside managed beans > - Add a mechanism to get this Container from non managed beans (like we get access to BeanManager from JNDI or CDI class) > > At that time, I contacted Bob Lee without success (didn’t tried Pivotal since I don’t have contact there). I checked with JCP what could be done if we’d like to see an evolution of JSR 330 and the owner doesn’t care, there seems to have solutions but I let it aside since we were in the middle of CDI 1.2 MR at that time. > > Today I’m a bit torn about this point. Working on opening JSR 330 could be like opening pandora box, since I see 2 scenarios : > > 1) former JSR 330 owners wake up and are ok to get for a new spec version they lead: > Knowing the history of JSR 330 vs JSR 299 I’m not sure everything we’d need would be heard and even if the people leading this would be cooperative, a lot of discussion and negotiation would be needed to be sure that this new AtInject wouldn’t contain features incompatible with CDI. So it’d be very time consuming with no guarantee to get what we’d need at the end. > > 2) former JSR 330 owner don’t mind others take ownership of their spec to enhance it and we (Red Hat) are the one to take this ownership to secure CDI: > The best solution to minimize risk. But leading a new specification is a lot more work than just deciding that we have a specific basic inject « part » in CDI 2.0. Leading a spec is very time consuming, so it could be better on the paper but will impact CDI 2.0 new features. > > To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) > > Your input, solutions or comment would be appreciated on this point. > > Antoine > > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev

If you file it very soon, see JSR 363 (we also use Apache but only for distinct RI/TCK deliverables, we were told so by PMO for 275 and stick to that, we only changed to Apache for RI/TCK because Spec Lead V2COM recommended it and no EG Members had an issue with that) you might be able to do that. At some point, probably not before JSR 358 concludes JSRs filed than, also CDI 3 or 2.x might have to chose ULA. I can't say how Oracle and PMO treats updates of prior JSRs, maybe they are allowed to stick to their "old" license, maybe Oracle / PMO will force them to migrate. JSPA.next will tell. Werner On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; wrote: Imo the CDI spec is clean in this regard. It mentions the evaluation license in the pdf itself and also points out that the RI, TCK and API is ALv2. Nothing to complain. I'd also like to remember where all this discussion started: That it is GOOD that the JSR-330 artifacts (which do not contain a separate spec pdf paper) are all ALv2 and thus we are lucky to be able to just maintain this in a new JSR. The other questions regarding JSR-330 is JCP politics... LieGrue, strub On Friday, 4 July 2014, 12:27, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: The CDI spec lead (Red Hat)’s official position for the CDI specification is clearly covered on http://www.cdi-spec.org/download/ If you have any questions regarding this, you will need to contact Red Hat legal. On 3 Jul 2014, at 19:33, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > I must correct you in the sense, that the license (that "Accept and Download" page) for the Spec is not Apache, though there is practically no spec here for these 6 annotations. > So it is a bit of a grey zone, and even EC Members with a large legal department are in ongoing discussions over that. The "Spec" and its Software Manifestation (normally all artifacts under "javax.something" or "java.something" (for the few JSRs like 310 that changed their package name in the course of the lifecycle) in Oracle's (the PMO) understanding is under the Spec License. > > So strictly speaking annotations under "javax.inject" are the "Spec", not RI or TCK, and therefore they don't fall under Apache 2. Google Guice and the TCK did and still do. > > Looking at JSRs like 107 https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec or 354, you'll notice they all have this in common. > Especially the JavaDoc as manifestation of the Spec (and for 330 that is all there is of a Spec) therefore naturally fall under the Spec License, too. > > Just see Java EE 7: http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/ the JavaDoc (for all JSRs within that umbrella) is therefore covered by the EE 7 Spec License > >Copyright © 1996-2013, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms. > see the link under "license terms"<329.gif> > > JSR 352 poses a stubbern dilemma as its EG and Spec Leads insist on a different license footer in the standalone distribution (Apache 2) as in the overall Java EE 7 umbrella. > Which is a nightmare for users, a reason I voted against the MR or abstained from this particular JSR as it denies what is reality at least for the Spec and artifacts like the JavaDoc. > > CDI refrains from this breach. At least there is no contradicting JavaDoc license pointer. > > Red Hat considers a "Dual Licensing" option for the Spec, but from all I heard so far, this is not how Oracle and the JCP PMO (or at least Oracle's lawyers) see this. > With the proposal of the ULA Oracle tries to get all future JSRs to use a single license for RI and TCK. > > There's an ongoing discussion over details, but unless Oracle's legal department and PMO make a dramatic turn on these matters, JSRs filed in the near future (including CDI 2 or beyond) would likely fall under Spec and ULA license. > > Cheers, > Werner > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; wrote: > As far as I know the history (and I have been tracking and contributing to JSR-330 back then) most of the people were fed up _because_ they got pushed to change the license from ALv2 to something else (cannot remember anymore what exactly). > > The original Apache v2 licensed work can be found here: > https://code.google.com/p/atinject/ > > I have no clue why Oracle added the 'accept license' radio button on their JSR-330 download page. Maybe just a copy&paste error? The text in this license window is in fact not ALv2 but something else which is wrong information at best. > > The good news: ALL the assets in JSR-330 still are ALv2! > Thus anyone can take it and enhance it. > Of course it would be good to have Bob and Jürgen on board, but legally it might not even be necessary. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > On Thursday, 3 July 2014, 17:35, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > I guess with only 5 or 6 annotations (and that's all the JSR consists of;-) if changing/improving only one or two of these was what's needed, this could be easiest as MR, otherwise 330 is history as it would require a new JSR. JSR 330 was under JCP 2.7 and for final JSRs they normally stay there, I don't think it can move to a newer version of the JCP: https://jcp.org/en/resources/guide-maintenance#2_7 > > The trouble is, both Spec Leads seem unresponsive or no longer around (Rod Johnson left Pivotal, Pivotal in its current form does not even seem JCP member and VMware may not be able or interested to step in for them) maybe Pete knows best if Bob was, as until JSR 364 or even a new version of the JSPA are finalized he could probably do it if he wants and has the time for this right now (especially if another JSR like CDI 2 depends on it, that can't be delayed even if this JSR may technically still be unaffected by JCP 2.8+) > > Except for active corporate members Oracle, Red Hat or IBM the whole EG practically disintegrated. Doug Lea and Tim Peirls may be involved elsewhere (mostly OpenJDK from all I heard) but they have not been active in the JCP or active JSRs recently. Google, we heard gave up the Spec Lead in the first place, so it is unlikely under the current circumstances it will play an active role. Jason VanZyl and Maven I know they at least use JSR 330 quite a bit, so they should at least be interested in its future direction. Thoughtworks I don't recall them to be involved and Martin Fowler himself told me of his "allergy" against such form of standardization, so I would not count on them here either. > > So assuming a separate @Inject spec shall be maintained there are 3 options: > • Bob Lee (or the other Spec Lead) responds in a timely manner to contact attempts by Antoine and ultimately the PMO (who needs to handle such situations) in which case a simple MR was possible > • A replacement of Maintenance Lead, along the lines of https://jcp.org/ja/introduction/faq-speclead#slresigns (it is rarely the case for an MR, but should work pretty much the same way here, so the main candidates to replace a Spec Lead would be in that EG, hence Red Hat, IBM or Oracle for most part;-) If such condition can't be resolved, both PMO and JCP EC would be able to help find a suitable replacement, too > • A whole new JSR is filed. Although it is often the case that the Spec Lead(s) are the same, that is not necessary, especially if the old ones moved on or can't do this any more right now. > HTH, > Werner > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Kito Mann <kito-public(a)virtua.com&gt; wrote: > My $0.02 is that it's worth the effort to evolve JSR-330 for the community as a whole. I've been on projects where they tend to use those annotations even in a CDI environment, and it makes it much easier to switch between Spring and CDI if necessary. > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: > Hi all, > > Since the first mention of CDI 2.0 preparation work, we've received a lot of comment about JSR 330 evolution. With the release of the proposal draft yesterday, this topic came up again. So let me give my point of view on this subject to have an open discussion here. > > When we started to discuss about modularity with Pete in last november, my first idea was to go see what we could add in JSR 330 to make it a true specification that could be the first module of CDI. My idea at that time was to discuss with JSR 330 owner to see if we could bring basic concept we have in CDI to AtInject spec. In my mind the main features would have been: > - Enhance the javax.inject.Provider<T> interface to bring it at the same level than javax.enterprise.inject.Instance<T>. That would have included support for AnnotationLiteral and TypeLiteral as well > - Add a Container interface (a very light BeanManger) in JSR 330 to be able to resolve beans instance from outside managed beans > - Add a mechanism to get this Container from non managed beans (like we get access to BeanManager from JNDI or CDI class) > > At that time, I contacted Bob Lee without success (didn’t tried Pivotal since I don’t have contact there). I checked with JCP what could be done if we’d like to see an evolution of JSR 330 and the owner doesn’t care, there seems to have solutions but I let it aside since we were in the middle of CDI 1.2 MR at that time. > > Today I’m a bit torn about this point. Working on opening JSR 330 could be like opening pandora box, since I see 2 scenarios : > > 1) former JSR 330 owners wake up and are ok to get for a new spec version they lead: > Knowing the history of JSR 330 vs JSR 299 I’m not sure everything we’d need would be heard and even if the people leading this would be cooperative, a lot of discussion and negotiation would be needed to be sure that this new AtInject wouldn’t contain features incompatible with CDI. So it’d be very time consuming with no guarantee to get what we’d need at the end. > > 2) former JSR 330 owner don’t mind others take ownership of their spec to enhance it and we (Red Hat) are the one to take this ownership to secure CDI: > The best solution to minimize risk. But leading a new specification is a lot more work than just deciding that we have a specific basic inject « part » in CDI 2.0. Leading a spec is very time consuming, so it could be better on the paper but will impact CDI 2.0 new features. > > To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0) > > Your input, solutions or comment would be appreciated on this point. > > Antoine > > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev