More over, GW> I'm concerned that by making CDI to servlet mapping a responsibility GW> of the servlet container

then we are going to have to do a GW> container to CDI adaptation for every CDI implementation out there.

GW> The servlet specification already provides servlet container initializers,

Give ownership of servlet specific part to servlet specification ---------------------------------------------------------------- Key: CDI-492 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-492 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Feature Request Components: Java EE integration Reporter: Antoine Sabot-Durand Fix For: 2.1 (Discussion) [Section 3.8 of the spec|http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/1.2/cdi-spec.html#additional_builtin_...] places some requirements on CDI implementations when running with Servlet. To better suit user desires for modularity these requirements are better met by moving them to the Servlet spec. Specifically, {quote} A servlet container must provide the following built-in beans, all of which have qualifier @Default: * a bean with bean type {{javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest}}, allowing injection of a reference to the HttpServletRequest * a bean with bean type {{javax.servlet.http.HttpSession}}, allowing injection of a reference to the HttpSession, * a bean with bean type {{javax.servlet.ServletContext}}, allowing injection of a reference to the ServletContext, These beans are passivation capable dependencies, as defined in Passivation capable dependencies. {quote}