[cdi-dev] CDI 1.1 EDR1 posted :-)

[Stuart Douglas]

On 07/10/2011, at 6:13 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:

> I basically share the sentiments Gavin posted on in.relation.to. We could do it but we really should be picky and don't let the oldschool (call it 'unsexy') EJB and EE like styled XML schema make it into the spec but rather build on top of the namespace->package based syntax we had in the original CDI draft.
> 
> BUT: 
> 
> 1.) we need to be aware that XML schemas are NOT that easy to change later! Thus if we see that we have forgotten something, then we are doomed for the future... And this situation is highly likely imo since getting this part right is not exactly easy.
> 
> 
> 2.) writing a water-safe spec for this might get pretty hard. Expect to add 20 more pages to our spec...  
> 
> 
> 3.) There is one de-facto standard for it already, which is seam-XML. CODI nor any other CDI Extension project will introduce any similar stuff because Seam-XML is working fine and has a perfectly business friendly license. So I'm not sure which benefit writing it into the spec would bring. I see no benefit over the current situation for CDI containers nor end-users. Au contraire: if we hit an error in seam-xml, then it's easy to get this fixed centrally.
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 

I agree 100%. We already have a standards compliant and portable implementation of XML configuration, thanks to CDI portable extensions. I really don't see the benefit of writing this into the spec.

Stuart

> 
> 
>> ________________________________
>> From: Rick Hightower <richardhightower at gmail.com>
>> To: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
>> Cc: Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>; cdi-dev <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>> Sent: Friday, October 7, 2011 12:03 AM
>> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] CDI 1.1 EDR1 posted :-)
>> 
>> 
>> I feel we need it too. I guess this goes without saying though. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I've received a lot of feedback at JavaOne that XML config is something people want to see in the standard. So I would like to revisit this question.
>>> 
>>> Feel free to discuss now, or I'll start with a proposal in a few weeks :-)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5 Oct 2011, at 23:43, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Fine thing.
>>>> 
>>>> Although I see a few issues which I'd rather like to keep off core CDI as they are very easy to implement as portable Extensions (e.g. the XML config stuff CDI-123).
>>>> 
>>>> We really must take care that we don't add things which bloats the CDI core spec with 20 pages which are hard to get right.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Instead we should really focus on things which are fundamental basics and thus cannot be done via a portable Extension.
>>>> 
>>>> LieGrue,
>>>> strub
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
>>>>> To: cdi-dev <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>>>> Cc:
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 2:21 AM
>>>>> Subject: [cdi-dev] CDI 1.1 EDR1 posted :-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/ContextsAndDependencyInjection11EarlyDraftSubmitted
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cdi-dev mailing list
>>>>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cdi-dev mailing list
>>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Rick Hightower
>> (415) 968-9037 
>> Profile 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev