9:43 a.m.
Nigel Deakin wrote up some excellent ackwards compatibility guidelines for Java EE specs -
http://java.net/projects/javaee-spec/pages/CompatibilityRequirements
These provide excellent info on what we can and can't change in CDI 1.1.
Check them out!
8:29 a.m.
There are two fixes in CDI 1.1 EDR1 of which I am not sure if they
comply with the document.
* CDI-36
* CDI-115
In both cases it's a non-compatible change in the SPI. The compatibility
document does not make a distinction between an API (consumed by
applications) and SPI (consumed by extensions). As a result, it is
difficult to put portable extensions that use the SPI into one of
categories defined by the document.
The "wrapper implementations" category seems to fit a description of a
typical portable extension the most (which would justify the changes)
although CDI extensions do not necessarily just "wrap a vendor
implementation".
Another way to look at it is that an application is always allowed to
implement the involved part of the SPI. In this case the changes above
violate the document requirements.
On 10/28/2011 04:43 PM, Pete Muir wrote:
Nigel Deakin wrote up some excellent ackwards compatibility
guidelines for Java EE specs -
http://java.net/projects/javaee-spec/pages/CompatibilityRequirements
These provide excellent info on what we can and can't change in CDI 1.1.
Check them out!
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
9:02 a.m.
On 2 Nov 2011, at 13:29, Jozef Hartinger wrote:
There are two fixes in CDI 1.1 EDR1 of which I am not sure if they
comply with the document.
* CDI-36
This relates to adding the qualifiers to the notify() method.
* CDI-115
This is a bug in CDI 1.0, that we didn't have Interceptor.intercept() rethrow checked
exceptions to be compatible with the interceptors spec.
In both cases it's a non-compatible change in the SPI. The compatibility document
does not make a distinction between an API (consumed by applications) and SPI (consumed by
extensions). As a result, it is difficult to put portable extensions that use the SPI into
one of categories defined by the document.
The "wrapper implementations" category seems to fit a description of a typical
portable extension the most (which would justify the changes) although CDI extensions do
not necessarily just "wrap a vendor implementation".
I think we can count it as this. But let me check with Bill.
C. Wrapper implementations of the specification. These provide classes that implement
interfaces defined in the specification but they do so by simply wrapping a vendor
implementation and adding some additional value. Examples are framework developers and
resource adapter developers.
Another way to look at it is that an application is always allowed to implement the
involved part of the SPI. In this case the changes above violate the document
requirements.
On 10/28/2011 04:43 PM, Pete Muir wrote:
> Nigel Deakin wrote up some excellent ackwards compatibility guidelines for Java EE
specs - http://java.net/projects/javaee-spec/pages/CompatibilityRequirements
>
> These provide excellent info on what we can and can't change in CDI 1.1.
>
> Check them out!
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
4573
days inactive
4578
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Jozef Hartinger -
Pete Muir