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

Fri Oct 7 14:47:52 EDT 2011

I agree with you about most extensions. But XML is different. People expect
XML config. Partly due to the pervasiveness of Spring et al.

I agree the XML should look something like Seam XML.

Anyway... just my 2 cents.

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>

-- 
*Rick Hightower*
(415) 968-9037
Profile <http://www.google.com/profiles/RichardHightower>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20111007/9d5b001e/attachment.html 