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

Mon Aug 31 04:00:58 EDT 2015

@Antonio: spring and guice have events, they just dont work the same way
CDI defined them but not a big deal IMO to support them (just one more
processor for spring for instance).

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
<http://www.tomitribe.com>

2015-08-31 9:57 GMT+02:00 Antonio Goncalves <antonio.goncalves at gmail.com>:

> I don't see Events in a "Lite" version because the other DI frameworks
> don't use them. A "fatter" 330 with producers, programmatic lookup and
> bootstrap, could be "easily" implemented by Spring, Guice... If we leave
> events in a Lite version, then it won't be the case, and Weld and OWB will
> be the only two implementations.
>
> For me, a Lite version would just be about DI. If Weld uses events
> internally to archieve basic DI, well, it's just an implementation
> decision, not a spec. I would not even try to standardize the way @Inject
> works (like Romain said, @Inject doesn't work the same in Weld or Spring),
> let's leave it like this. If you take back Antoine sentence "*This would
> allow using CDI in constrained environment like mobile or embedded devices*",
> then I don't think events would fit here.
>
> Antonio
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> > For me, a Light version of CDI is clearly the features number. That's
>> why I don't see events in it.
>>
>> We did discuss this last year on the f2f meeting. The problem lies within
>> our Extension mechanism. Without events you also need to drop the Extension
>> mechanism. And to be honest, this is THE major hit in all CDI…
>> Sorry to be the bad guy busting all those ideas. I really don’t want to,
>> but better now than too late down the road ;)
>>
>> It’s really tricky as many features are heavily based on each other. E.g.
>> by removing scanning you could get rid of javassist/asm/etc ? nope, we also
>> have our class proxies which need bytecode tinkering. So remove
>> interceptors and decorators too? Well yea, but we still have normalscoping
>> -> what is left? basically spring prototype and singleton. Hmm.  that’s not
>> that much compared to full CDI. And all that for only 200kByte?
>> (Btw we also discussed generating the bytecode classes at build time, but
>> then we still miss the dynamics we get from Extensions, e.g. PAT adding an
>> interceptor annotation)
>> Just to give you a rough idea how this all works together when it comes
>> to implementation details…
>> Please feel free to ask Jozef and me for further infos on ‚dependencies‘.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>> > Am 30.08.2015 um 18:09 schrieb Antonio Goncalves <
>> antonio.goncalves at gmail.com>:
>> >
>> > For me, a Light version of CDI is clearly the features number. That's
>> why I don't see events in it.
>> >
>> > For me, a CDI Lite would just focus on DI. If CDI has @Produces and
>> Spring has @Bean, then it's because 330 lakes this functionality.
>> >
>> > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Lite can have several definition, let's try to list them up if it can
>> help:
>> >
>> > - binary size: for me until 3M for an app it is "Lite"
>> > - features number: the whole IoC set of feature is light since you
>> almost always need it, it means you can do lighter but it wouldnt be used -
>> check spring, who uses only spring-ioc and not context or more?
>> > - features complexity: sure we are not light here but supporting scopes
>> already breaks "Lite-ness" IMO so not a real issue
>> >
>> > So my view is CDI "SE" is light enough - as a spec and spec can't
>> affect implementations so seems the fight is not on the right side to me.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Romain Manni-Bucau
>> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber
>> >
>> > 2015-08-30 15:57 GMT+02:00 Antonio Goncalves <
>> antonio.goncalves at gmail.com>:
>> > It's funny, I feel I'm in Rod Johnson shoes back in Java EE 6 where he
>> forked 330 because he found CDI was doing too much  ;o)
>> >
>> > For me, "CDI Lite" was just basic dependency injection. The fact that
>> CDI can now run on SE (like JPA....), is good... but for me it has nothing
>> to do with Light : it's the entire thing that can bootstrap in SE. Good.
>> >
>> > So what is Lite for you guys ?
>> >
>> > Antonio
>> >
>> > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 2015-08-30 15:22 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <john.d.ament at gmail.com>:
>> > 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).
>> >
>> >
>> > +1, most of CDI is basic and quickly any light version will miss events
>> or other thing - in particular in maintaining micro services from
>> experience. Size of an implementation can easily be < 1M so not sure it
>> would bring anything. Only important point is what Antoine started to do ie
>> ensuring EE and SE parts are clearly identified and split in the spec.
>> >
>> > 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 août 2015 à 23:15, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms at gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>> > 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 | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Antonio Goncalves
>> > Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
>> >
>> > Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Antonio Goncalves
>> > Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author
>> >
>> > Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Pluralsight | Paris JUG | Devoxx France
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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/20150831/4d1b9468/attachment.html 