[cdi-dev] Feedback from Devoxx

[Antonio Goncalves]

Yes, we talked about this topic with Manfried and Antoine : CDI should not
mention servlet or JSF nor depend on them. I think a little refactoring of
the spec would be needed in 2.0 so that CDI doesn't depend on anything
(except @Inject) and all the specs would, hopefully, depend on it.

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:23 PM, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Antonio Goncalves
> <antonio.goncalves at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Like @dblevins once said "EJB was a super hype spec with all the cool
> > features... and became blotted throughout the years". If we are not
> careful,
> > CDI (the super hype spec at the moment) will become blotted too
>
> I strongly support that!
>
> IMHO as little as possible of these higher level features should be
> implemented within CDI itself, so that CDI itself can completely focus
> on being the contextual DI spec on which all other specs can build.
>
> I think it's already problematic that CDI 1.1 provided producers for
> Servlet artifacts, instead of letting the Servlet spec itself define
> those producers. If/when Servlet starts depending on CDI there will be
> a rather awkward circular dependency.
>
> Kind regards,
> Arjan
>



-- 
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/20141117/bcc95652/attachment.html