[cdi-dev] CDI 2.0 first Face to face meeting feedbac

[Pete Muir]

> On 23 Oct 2014, at 16:11, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de> wrote:
> 
> I think the only sane thing is to give guarantees for exactly 1 BeanManager at the same time in a JVM.

+1 from me, though we should word it that people can do other things if they want to.

> 
> Supporting multiple BeanManagers could be done by wiring up an own ClassLoader hierarchy pretty easily. But I have not yet seen any requirement to do so in any productive project so far.
> 
> 
> And changing impls to support the requirement to support different active BeanManagers on the same Thread is a task for really freaky minds...
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, 23 October 2014, 13:39, John D. Ament <john.d.ament at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> I could see this being problematic for implementations to deal with:
>> 
>> 
>> ContainerBoot boot = ...;
>> BeanManager beanManager1 = boot.initialize();
>> CDI.current();
>> BeanManager beanManager2 = boot.initialize();
>> CDI.current();
>> 
>> 
>> I see the second call to CDI.current() failing, since it should end up bound to a thread.  If we instead return back a reference to CDI here, we know which instance we're dealing with and avoid the underlying threading problem.
>> 
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine at sabot-durand.net> wrote:
>> 
>> What would be the interest of having CDI object to call getBeanManager() instead of having the bean manager directly ?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Antoine
>>> 
>>> Le 23 oct. 2014 à 03:13, John D. Ament <john.d.ament at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Antoine,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> For the SE feature, I think the return type on the initialize() methods should be CDI instead of BeanManager.  What do you think?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine at sabot-durand.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi guys, 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> New post on the blog :  Check what was discussed in our last week F2F meeting.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.cdi-spec.org/news/2014/10/20/CDI-2_0-first-face-to-face-meeting-feedback/
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Antoine
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cdi-dev mailing list
>>>>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>>>> 
>>>>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdi-dev mailing list
>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>> 
>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> 
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.