[cdi-dev] About JSR 330.Next and CDI 2.0

Thu Jul 3 05:02:28 EDT 2014

FYI - I've sent a note to the various folks from Google, Pivotal et al,
I'll let Antoine explain the CDI 2.0 proposal to them and I'm sure they'll
either join this mailing list / discussion or we'll quickly find out
there's no appetite and we can move on.

Cheers,
Martijn

On 3 July 2014 09:51, Martijn Verburg <martijnverburg at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> To be blunt, this is a social/community issue - not a technical one.  We
> simply need to get hold of the folks at Pivotal, Google (and other 330 EG
> members) and get them around the virtual table.  If they subsequently
> aren't interested then fine, you should forge your own path.
>
> There's an absolute mega ton of 330 based DI code out there and 330
> compliant containers, if CDI 2.0 wants to be the defacto std going forwards
> it simply can't afford ignore that.
>
> @Antoine - let's put our heads together and see who we need to get hold of
> in the 330 group, I think CDI 2.0 has strong merits and should be explored.
>
> @Werner - your comments about Bob's commitment (considering what he's done
> for the tech community at large, let alone Java) are highly inappropriate,
> please refrain from personal attacks on this or any other public forum.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Martijn
>
>
> On 3 July 2014 09:02, Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> > To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be
>> happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could
>> lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on
>> AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0)
>>
>> Well, I'm not spec lead, I'm just a Java EE user... so I like scenario 2
>> ;o)
>>
>> But on the other hand, I think there is so much work to be done around
>> CDI 2.0, parts, and taking those parts to other specifications that
>> battling with JSR 330 might be time consuming. I would go for scenario
>> 1.... and cross fingers
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Werner Keil <werner.keil at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Antoine/all,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the detailed overview and trying to reach out to the former
>>> Spec Leads and EG of JSR 330. I also copied Anatole, Spec Lead of JSR 354,
>>> since Bob Lee is officially in his EG, but has practically never provided
>>> input there either (like we tend to see sometimes from others considered
>>> "Rock Stars" of the Java Community but since then seemingly resting on
>>> their laurels or just too busy counting their stock options?[?])
>>>
>>> Given CDI already was the public perception of "javax.inject" for most
>>> parts, I don't necessarily see that it had to be an MR to the original JSR,
>>> though as those involved in the EC (Martijn, Badr/MoroccoJUG,..) could
>>> probably check with the PMO how to handle a case where the Maintenance Lead
>>> of a JSR was not in the position to continue. I last met Jürgen Höller
>>> about a year ago in Copenhagen, so for Pivotal's part as Co Spec Lead, I
>>> guess he or the likes of Josh Long could be best to speak to. Happy to get
>>> you in touch with them if you want.
>>>
>>> Red Hat was also EG member of JSR 330, so Pete, Gavin or whoever else
>>> was there (I remember him from conversations where Mike Keith and I took
>>> part in synergy discussions between 330 and CDI 1.0) at the time could also
>>> help you with this.
>>>
>>> In theory this could also be part of a new JSR (CDI 2) as long as none
>>> of the enhancements you have in mind break the existing API of JSR 330. The
>>> scope of CDI 2 to work in an SE/standalone or more lightweight environment
>>> than Java EE environment raises a good question of package names like " javax.enterprise.inject.*"
>>> So maybe there is room for synergies in a package namespace other than
>>> "javax.enterprise" at least for new things you have in mind.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>>
>>>  Werner Keil | JCP Executive Committee Member, JSR 363 Co Spec Lead |
>>> Eclipse UOMo Lead, Babel Language Champion | Apache Committer
>>>
>>> Twitter @wernerkeil | @UnitAPI | @JSR354 | #EclipseUOMo | #Java_Social
>>> | #DevOps
>>>  Skype werner.keil | Google+ gplus.to/wernerkeil
>>>
>>> * Developer Week: 14/15 Jul 2014, Nürnberg, Germany. Werner Keil, JCP EC
>>> Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead, DevOps Guy will present "Triple-E' class
>>> Continuous Delivery", "JSR 363 and IoT" (GER)
>>>
>>> * JavaZone 2014: 9-11 Sep 2014, Oslo, Norway. Werner Keil, JCP EC
>>> Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead will present "JSR 363 - The Answer to Life
>>> Science and the Internet of Everything"
>>>
>>> * JavaOne 2014: Sep 28-Oct 2 2014, San Francisco, USA, Werner Keil, JCP
>>> EC Member, JSR 354 EG Member will host "Java and Digital Currencies, Friend
>>> or FOE"
>>>
>>> * JMaghreb 3.0: 4-6 Nov 2014, Casablanca, Morocco. Werner Keil, JCP EC
>>> Member, JSR 363 Spec Lead, DevOps Guy will present "Triple-E' class
>>> DevOps", "JSR 363"
>>>
>>> * Mobile Developer Conference kompakt: 18 Nov 2014, Hamburg, Germany.
>>> Werner Keil, JCP EC Member, Apache DeviceMap Committer will present "Apache
>>> DeviceMap" (GER)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand <
>>> antoine at sabot-durand.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Since the first mention of CDI 2.0 preparation work, we've received a
>>>> lot of comment about JSR 330 evolution. With the release of the proposal
>>>> draft yesterday, this topic came up again. So let me give my point of view
>>>> on this subject to have an open discussion here.
>>>>
>>>> When we started to discuss about modularity with Pete in last november,
>>>> my first idea was to go see what we could add in JSR 330 to make it a true
>>>> specification that could be the first module of CDI. My idea at that time
>>>> was to discuss with JSR 330 owner to see if we could bring basic concept we
>>>> have in CDI to AtInject spec. In my mind the main features would have been:
>>>>  - Enhance the javax.inject.Provider<T> interface to bring it at the
>>>> same level than javax.enterprise.inject.Instance<T>. That would have
>>>> included support for AnnotationLiteral and TypeLiteral as well
>>>>  - Add a Container interface (a very light BeanManger) in JSR 330 to be
>>>> able to resolve beans instance from outside managed beans
>>>>  - Add a mechanism to get this Container from non managed beans (like
>>>> we get access to BeanManager from JNDI or CDI class)
>>>>
>>>> At that time, I contacted Bob Lee without success (didn’t tried Pivotal
>>>> since I don’t have contact there). I checked with JCP what could be done if
>>>> we’d like to see an evolution of JSR 330 and the owner doesn’t care, there
>>>> seems to have solutions but I let it aside since we were in the middle of
>>>> CDI 1.2 MR at that time.
>>>>
>>>> Today I’m a bit torn about this point. Working on opening JSR 330 could
>>>> be like opening pandora box, since I see 2 scenarios :
>>>>
>>>> 1) former JSR 330 owners wake up and are ok to get for a new spec
>>>> version they lead:
>>>> Knowing the history of JSR 330 vs JSR 299 I’m not sure everything we’d
>>>> need would be heard and even if the people leading this would be
>>>> cooperative, a lot of discussion and negotiation would be needed to be sure
>>>> that this new AtInject wouldn’t contain features incompatible with CDI. So
>>>> it’d be very time consuming with no guarantee to get what we’d need at the
>>>> end.
>>>>
>>>> 2) former JSR 330 owner don’t mind others take ownership of their spec
>>>> to enhance it and we (Red Hat) are the one to take this ownership to secure
>>>> CDI:
>>>> The best solution to minimize risk. But leading a new specification is
>>>> a lot more work than just deciding that we have a specific basic inject «
>>>> part » in  CDI 2.0. Leading a spec is very time consuming, so it could be
>>>> better on the paper but will impact CDI 2.0 new features.
>>>>
>>>> To sum up, as a Java EE user (like I have been for 10 years) I’d be
>>>> happy to see this (scenario 2), but as CDI spec lead I fear that it could
>>>> lead us in a trap (going to scenario 1 or consuming precious time on
>>>> AtInject+1 instead of CDI 2.0)
>>>>
>>>> Your input, solutions or comment would be appreciated on this point.
>>>>
>>>> Antoine
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Antonio Goncalves
>> Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
>>
>> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> | Twitter
>> <http://twitter.com/agoncal> | LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Pluralsight
>> <http://pluralsight.com/training/Authors/Details/antonio-goncalves> | Paris
>> JUG <http://www.parisjug.org> | Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20140703/a7af1b69/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 257 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20140703/a7af1b69/attachment.gif 