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

[Pete Muir]

We discussed Java SE support extensively in the CDI panel at JavaOne. There was a strong agreement that defining a Java SE mode would be an excellent thing to do. If we do that, we need to define the contexts available, and their lifecycle.

I created https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-174 to track this. Mark, could you add how OWB works there?

On 14 Oct 2011, at 10:01, Mark Struberg wrote:

> What do you exactly mean with JavaSE contexts?
> Do you mean that we should _explicitely_ declare that @ApplicationScoped, @RequestScoped and @SessionScoped must be active by default in SE apps?
> 
> 
> In OWB and CODI we we provide the same contexts for both SE and EE already. But their behaviour is slightly different.
> 
> This is really a big benefit not only for SE apps, but also when it comes to unit testing, as you don't need to boot a whole container. Arquillian is pretty fast already, but doing it 'native' is still 10 times faster.
> 
> In OWB/CODI we started have something like the following in our Extension which registers our scopes 
> 
> 
> if (projectStage = ProjectStage.UnitTest) {
>   registerDummyScopes()...
> } else {
>   registerRealScopes();
> }
> 
> where the dummy scopes are just dumb Maps per Thread.
> 
> 
> And sometimes we just have a Context Facade which gets the 'real' context implementation as a 
> 
> @Dependent MyContextImpl
> 
> bean. In codi-core-impl we just provide a pure SE only implementation, in codi-jsf12-impl we provide a 
> 
> 
> @Specializes @Dependent
> Jsf12MyContextImpl extends MyContextImpl
> 
> and in codi-jsf20-impl an 
> 
> @Specializes @Dependent
> Jsf20MyContextImpl extends Jsf12MyContextImpl
> 
> This works pretty well because the context registration is only done in @Observes AfterBeanDiscovery, thus you can fully use CDI itself in the Contexts. 
> 
> The only thing you must take care is that internally used Contexts got registered before your own. E.g. the CODI @RestScoped an @WindowScoped storage internally,
> thus @WindowScoped must get registered upfront.
> 
> 
> Means, technically it is easily doable, but it's some homework to do for Containers and Extensions.
> 
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
>> ________________________________
>> From: Rick Hightower <richardhightower at gmail.com>
>> To: Peter Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
>> Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 2:24 AM
>> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] CDI 1.1 EDR1 posted :-)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Basically if CDI does these....
>> 
>> •Split specification into core and Java EE integration
>> •Bootstrap support
>> •Java SE context definition
>> 
>> 
>> 1, 1.1, and 1.2 need to be rewritten.
>> 
>> 
>> The spec CDI 1.0 started out very JSF and EJB centric. CDI is, and is becoming more so, more general. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Then all of the intro material from 
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Peter Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I would be more than happy to accept rewrites here.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I think the best way is for you to offer a proposal and then we discuss it here...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Pete Muir
>>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete
>>> 
>>> On 13 Oct 2011, at 19:16, Rick Hightower <richardhightower at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I think CDI has changed its purpose and scope enough that some of the intro material which made total sense when CDI was forming is now missing the mark.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> CDI sort of evolved what was possible. The intro is still talking about the CDI you are going to build and the problem it is trying to solve.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> CDI 1.1, problem has been solved well, and CDI redefined what was there.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Anyway... the intro material does not match the current scope and where CDI is today.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I think its important because some folks will never get past the intro... :)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Don't want CDI to be pigeon holed into some role it has but it is so much more than that.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> It is more general purpose than that.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I want to table this. I can offer some rewrites.. But wanted to throw this out there. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/ContextsAndDependencyInjection11EarlyDraftSubmitted
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cdi-dev mailing list
>>>>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Rick Hightower
>>>> (415) 968-9037 
>>>> Profile 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Rick Hightower
>> (415) 968-9037 
>> Profile 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdi-dev mailing list
>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>> 
>> 
>>