Le 15 avr. 2015 à 11:41, Tomas Remes <tremes(a)redhat.com&gt; a écrit : Hi Antoine, I quickly went through the new spec html and here follows my questions/suggestions/clarifications which I have discovered so far: - chapter 1.4 and 1.4.1 - do we want to describe servlets, EJBs here? And in general do we want to mention @SessionScoped and @RequestScoped in SE?

- chapter 1.8.3 - briefly mention MVC and JSF (not a big issue)

- chapter 1.9 - does it make sense in SE to talk about DeploymentProblems?

- chapter 5.7 and all its subchapters - this needs revision IMHO (probably next step?)

T. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Antoine Sabot-Durand" <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; To: "cdi-dev" <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 2:24:01 PM Subject: [cdi-dev] Java SE / EE split, link to the generated spec Hi all, After a lot of do, undo, redo, I sent, this morning, a PR containing a first draft of this split. To give an idea of the final result, the generated spec doc is available here : https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2898173/cdi-spec.html The goal of this splitting is to have an EJB free version of the spec to provide an official Java SE support for CDI. It’s also the 1st step to introduce parts in the spec, should we decide to do it. Thanks for your feedback, here, in the pull request or in the corresponding Jira ticket : https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-160 Antoine _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.

Le 15 avr. 2015 à 17:06, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; a écrit : I think this is a good start. I agree with Tomas’ points, and additionally I think we need to normalise the language used to describe the “additions”. I number of phrases are used, and it really should be just one (so that people don’t argue in the future about whether different phrasings have different implications). I like “When running in Java EE […] the container must additionaly […]” the most. For example I would change In Java EE, in addition to the kinds of bean listed in Programming model, the container must provide built-in support for injection and contextual lifecycle management of the following kinds of bean: to When running in Java EE, the container must additionally provide built-in support for injection and contextual lifecycle management of the following kinds of bean: This should replace everything like “with the following addition”, “in Java EE, the container is also required” etc. You’ve raised contexts elsewhere so let me discus that there. Pete > On 14 Apr 2015, at 13:24, Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: > > Hi all, > > > After a lot of do, undo, redo, I sent, this morning, a PR containing a first draft of this split. > > To give an idea of the final result, the generated spec doc is available here : https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2898173/cdi-spec.html > > The goal of this splitting is to have an EJB free version of the spec to provide an official Java SE support for CDI. It’s also the 1st step to introduce parts in the spec, should we decide to do it. > > Thanks for your feedback, here, in the pull request or in the corresponding Jira ticket : https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-160 > > Antoine > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > > Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.