We had this discussion quite some time ago. If you like to have fun then read up CDI-129 ;) It basically boils down that the majority of CDI EG members wanted to behave @ApplicationScoped as "1 per EAR", so we miss the "1 per Module/WebApp". But this is needed if you e.g. like to store something which is unique to the webapp. E.g a cache in a JSF app. Would be pretty nasty to share e.g. caches over different WARs... LieGrue, strub On Friday, 21 November 2014, 17:45, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>MS> side) is kind of a @WebAppScoped. This is really missing atm. But >>MS> again this must also be active in e.g. JMS invocations which form >>MS> kind a 'logical app'. > > >We got e.g. a very distributed Java EE app here at the current client where JMS is a vital part, but it's not just used in the Web tier. > > >Werner > > > > > >On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:14 PM, <cdi-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; wrote: > >Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to >> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> >>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev >>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> cdi-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org >> >>You can reach the person managing the list at >> cdi-dev-owner(a)lists.jboss.org >> >>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>than "Re: Contents of cdi-dev digest..." >> >> >>Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Getting injection point from Bean#create (Romain Manni-Bucau) >> 2. Re: Getting injection point from Bean#create (Romain Manni-Bucau) >> 3. Re: Getting injection point from Bean#create (arjan tijms) >> 4. Re: Getting injection point from Bean#create (Jozef Hartinger) >> 5. Re: [servlet-spec users] [jsr369-experts] >> [116-CDIRelatedBeansInServletSpec] PROPOSAL (Edward Burns) >> >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >>Message: 5 >>Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 06:14:25 -0800 >>From: Edward Burns <edward.burns(a)oracle.com&gt; >>Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] [servlet-spec users] [jsr369-experts] >> [116-CDIRelatedBeansInServletSpec] PROPOSAL >>To: Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt;, users(a)servlet-spec.java.net, >> Cdi-dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; >>Message-ID: <21615.18625.427842.794819(a)gargle.gargle.HOWL&gt; >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> >>Mark added cdi-dev to the recipients list, but I am not subscribed to >>that (please don't add me, I rely on JJ to keep me up to date!), so this >>may bounce there. >> >>Also, Mark, there is no <jsr369-users(a)servlet-spec.java.net&gt;. The users >>lists are re-used from JSR to JSR for each technology. Thus, I have put &gt;&gt;users(a)servlet-spec.java.net in place of the non-existent list. >> >>On Wednesday, 19 November 2014, 19:40, Edward Burns <edward.burns(a)oracle.com&gt; wrote: >> >>[...] >> >>EB> section 15.5.15 "Contexts and Dependency Injection for Java EE >>EB> requirements". >> >>EB> The CDI spec is trying to trim itself down [...] >> >>EB> CDI Spec section 3.8 [1] places some requirements on CDI implementations >>EB> when running with Servlet. To better suit user desires for modularity >>EB> these requirements are better met by moving them to the Servlet >>EB> spec. >> >>[...] >> >>EB> To put these items in the Servlet spec, we may have to couch them in >>EB> terms similar to, "when running in an environment that also supports >>EB> CDI...". >> >>EB> PROPOSAL: >> >>EB> Include language in our spec section 15.5.15 which allows the CDI spec >>EB> to remove their language while preserving desired existing user >>EB> functionality. >> >>[...] >> >>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:47:19 +0000 (UTC), Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; said: >> >>MS> I'm not quite sure that it's worth it. The @RequestScoped and >>MS> @SessionScoped are already in the CDI spec package. And as you know >>MS> we must not split packages between different specs. >> >>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 22:32:39 +0100, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms(a)gmail.com&gt; said: >> >>AT> I don't think it's about moving those scope annotations, but just >>AT> about the injection of HttpServletRequest, HttpSession and >>AT> ServletContext. >> >>Granted. The proposal does not touch those. Mark was just questioning >>if it was worth it. I am skeptical myself, but am responsive to >>community input. >> >>MS> It would feel quite unnatural to have annotations in the CDI APIs >>MS> but the description in the servlet spec. [...] >> >>I'll trust that Antoine Sabot-Durand (ASD) will take your reservations >>into account when deciding to press on with CDI-492-FobStuffToServlet or >>not. >> >>MS> What we probably could add (regardless whether on CDI or Servlet >>MS> side) is kind of a @WebAppScoped. This is really missing atm. But >>MS> again this must also be active in e.g. JMS invocations which form >>MS> kind a 'logical app'. >> >>That's a whole new thing, again for ASD to consider. As you observe, it >>doesn't belong in Servlet because JMS can also use it. >> >>Ed >> >>-- >>| edward.burns(a)oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017 >> >> >>------------------------------ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>cdi-dev mailing list &gt;&gt;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. >> >>End of cdi-dev Digest, Vol 48, Issue 16 >>*************************************** >> > >_______________________________________________ >cdi-dev mailing list &gt;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. > >

Oh and before I get misinterpreted: it was pretty soon clear to all the EG that we need 2 Scopes. The question was just whether the existing CDI-1.0 @ApplicationScoped annotation should be the 1-per-EAR or the 1-per-Module. LieGrue, strub