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

Fri Oct 7 11:02:09 EDT 2011

Carlo, the argument is that CDI specifies portable extensions. 

Thus you don't need to specify any CDI-XML itself because the Seam-XML Extension is portable on any CDI container anyway.

By giving the Hibernate example please remember how long it took to get a working JPA spec and that it is NOT hibernate which got specified. JPA is similar but not the exact same.

LieGrue,
strub

----- Original Message -----
> From: Carlo de Wolf <cdewolf at redhat.com>
> To: Stuart Douglas <stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com>
> Cc: Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>; cdi-dev <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 7, 2011 4:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] CDI 1.1 EDR1 posted :-)
> 
> On 10/07/2011 09:17 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>>  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
> 
> While the implementation itself adheres to the CDI extension standard, 
> it in itself is not a standard.
> 
> The question I have is, would users and vendors want to have CDI 
> extensions themselves be standardized?
> 
> I think there is value in having some CDI extensions be certified. Not 
> just being a de-facto.
> (Remember how Seam and Hibernate became de-jure.)
> 
> Now this should in no way be attached to the CDI spec itself. Each 
> extension spec should have its independent lifecycle, so it can be 
> updated or deprecated at whim.
> 
> I would even say that EJB 4 would make a nice case.
> (Although calling it EJB 4 would be so wrong. ;-) )
> 
> Carlo
> 
>>> 
>>>>  ________________________________
>>>>  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
>> 
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  cdi-dev mailing list
>>  cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>  https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>