[cdi-dev] Time to start working on CDI lite

Sun Aug 30 10:11:29 EDT 2015

Antonio/all,

JSR 330 was never a "subspec" of CDI, but CDI simply extended it. Just like
e.g. Portlet, JSP or JSF all extend and build around a standard like
Servlets.

Antoine mentioned Dagger, so if a CDI "lite" aims at SE, would the minimum
version also be SE 8 or could it be more widely usable, at least on the
Spec/API side?

We all know, Android is a bit of a red hering for Oracle with all that
lawsuit mess going on seemingly forever. Especially Dagger now that Google
took ownership again with 2.0 also aims at Android among other SE
environments. The minimum JVM version is Java SE 7 according to the POM.

If there's anything similar to a CDI lite as a subset, it's probably
CLDC/Java ME. Compared to Java SE it has a much smaller footprint with even
the same class often being reduced in its number of methods. Not sure, if
the latter was really necessary for CDI lite, but reducing the number of
overall API elements should help to get it small and useful enough for SE.

Werner

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:22 PM, <cdi-dev-request at lists.jboss.org> wrote:

> Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to
>         cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         cdi-dev-request at lists.jboss.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         cdi-dev-owner at lists.jboss.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of cdi-dev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Time to start working on CDI lite (Antoine Sabot-Durand)
>    2. Re: Time to start working on CDI lite (Antoine Sabot-Durand)
>    3. Re: Time to start working on CDI lite (Antonio Goncalves)
>    4. Re: Time to start working on CDI lite (John D. Ament)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 14:06:33 +0200
> From: Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Time to start working on CDI lite
> To: Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine at sabot-durand.net>
> Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CA+ZZq9-RW68R+o1c3n5J6KSGtki+o+89SvTpovSFL5ZKq6BTWQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> @Antoine, so which content do you see in CDI Lite ? Are you sure about
> events ?
>
> I'm in favor of a "fatter" 330 that would have :
>
>    - @Inject : already there
>    - @Qualifier : already there
>    -
> *Producers and disposers *
>    -
> *Programatic lookup *
>    - *Java SE Bootstrap*
>
> When you say "*The goal here is not to propose a new EE profile but a
> subspec*", 330 could already be seen as a subspec. If you put events
> apparts, what would be missing in this list in your point of view ? And
> what obstacles do you see in archieving this ?
>
> To boostrap CDI we have a CDIProvider, why not having an InjectionProvider
> just to bootstrap 330 (then, CDIProvider could extend InjectionProvider, so
> it bootstraps the all thing) ?
>
> Antonio
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Antoine Sabot-Durand <
> antoine at sabot-durand.net> wrote:
>
> > Yes Arjan, I think it's the first reason. We really should work with them
> > to understand what should be added to CDI 2.0 to have it as a first
> citizen
> > DI in their spec.
> >
> > Le sam. 29 ao?t 2015 ? 23:15, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms at gmail.com> a
> > ?crit :
> >
> >> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Antonio Goncalves
> >> <antonio.goncalves at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I remember talking with the JAX-RS guys (Java EE), years ago (back in
> >> EE6),
> >> > and their answer for not adopting CDI was "too heavy".
> >>
> >> I can't find an exact reference anymore, but I somewhat remember that
> >> one of the reasons was also simply that CDI as a general solution
> >> finished late in Java EE 6, while JAX-RS finished earlier and had all
> >> the work for their own DI solution already done.
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> 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/20150830/6d57ffc9/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 13:22:04 +0000
> From: "John D. Ament" <john.d.ament at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Time to start working on CDI lite
> To: Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves at gmail.com>,    Antoine
>         Sabot-Durand <antoine at sabot-durand.net>
> Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAOqetn_Afc0BfGPcSRBQiKuvtOfZnQKzxHv59KhbJfLTGKoH4w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Personally, I'm not in favor of a slimmed down runtime.  It was tried with
> EJB, but never implemented properly (most implementations that support
> EJB-lite actually support the entire thing, except for deprecated stuff).
>
> I think if we define SE properly we won't have a need for this.
>
> John
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 8:07 AM Antonio Goncalves <
> antonio.goncalves at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > @Antoine, so which content do you see in CDI Lite ? Are you sure about
> > events ?
> >
> > I'm in favor of a "fatter" 330 that would have :
> >
> >    - @Inject : already there
> >    - @Qualifier : already there
> >    -
> > *Producers and disposers *
> >    -
> > *Programatic lookup *
> >    - *Java SE Bootstrap*
> >
> > When you say "*The goal here is not to propose a new EE profile but a
> > subspec*", 330 could already be seen as a subspec. If you put events
> > apparts, what would be missing in this list in your point of view ? And
> > what obstacles do you see in archieving this ?
> >
> > To boostrap CDI we have a CDIProvider, why not having an
> InjectionProvider
> > just to bootstrap 330 (then, CDIProvider could extend InjectionProvider,
> so
> > it bootstraps the all thing) ?
> >
> > Antonio
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Antoine Sabot-Durand <
> > antoine at sabot-durand.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes Arjan, I think it's the first reason. We really should work with
> them
> >> to understand what should be added to CDI 2.0 to have it as a first
> citizen
> >> DI in their spec.
> >>
> >> Le sam. 29 ao?t 2015 ? 23:15, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms at gmail.com> a
> >> ?crit :
> >>
> >>> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Antonio Goncalves
> >>> <antonio.goncalves at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > I remember talking with the JAX-RS guys (Java EE), years ago (back in
> >>> EE6),
> >>> > and their answer for not adopting CDI was "too heavy".
> >>>
> >>> I can't find an exact reference anymore, but I somewhat remember that
> >>> one of the reasons was also simply that CDI as a general solution
> >>> finished late in Java EE 6, while JAX-RS finished earlier and had all
> >>> the work for their own DI solution already done.
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20150830/64394d4f/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
> End of cdi-dev Digest, Vol 57, Issue 31
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20150830/08ba2b50/attachment-0001.html 