[cdi-dev] [PROPOSAL] further align CDI and EJB

[Antoine Sabot-Durand]

>From my POV problems are:

- EJB spec totally ignore CDI (it's CDI that does all the job of EJB
integration)
- EJB spec won't be reopened except for minor MR
- I launched the proposition for a new spec based on our AnnotatedType meta
model when we were discussing about config spec. I didn't have enough
support from Red Hat and EG so I put it back in my drawer.

Antoine

Le jeu. 12 nov. 2015 à 11:17, Tomas Remes <tremes at redhat.com> a écrit :

>
> I think nothing will happen in EJB spec so I would not really rely on some
> future collaboration. Another case is this classpath scanning and
> AnnotatedType/PAT stuff. This sounds to me like quite interesting idea at
> least at first glance.:) But the question is: Isn't it late to propose any
> new JSR for upcoming EE 8? I guess it is so this seems to me bit out of
> scope for CDI 2.x... maybe CDI 3?:)
>
> Tom
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sven Linstaedt" <sven.linstaedt at gmail.com>
> To: "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rmannibucau at gmail.com>
> Cc: "cdi-dev" <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:45:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] [PROPOSAL] further align CDI and EJB
>
> +1 for splitting the classpath scanning and all AnnotatedXXX /
> ProcessAnnotatedType type parsing/overriding from the CDI in an own spec,
> so other specs (not only EJB) may rely on it.
>
> 2015-11-11 20:54 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < rmannibucau at gmail.com > :
>
>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> few points on that topic:
>
> - let the EJB container reuse AnnotatedType (ie even add @Stateless
> through an Extension): +1
> - veto an EJB as a whole and not only in CDI side - ie @Schedule is
> ignored on EJB side of thing: I'm quite mitigated. Looks tempting but it
> would break the compatibility with extsing apps I fear since veto is 100% a
> CDI thing today.
>
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau | Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Tomitriber
>
> 2015-11-11 11:47 GMT-08:00 Mark Struberg < struberg at yahoo.de > :
>
>
> Hi!
>
> We already do a decent amount of ‚side-by-side‘ handling in EJB and CDI.
> But there are still many aready where we could really move together much
> closer.
>
> E.g. the CDI spec defines that @Vetoed on EJBs must get accounted by the
> EJB container. But what happens with ProcessAnnotatedType#veto(). This one
> is not defined that clearly I fear.
>
> What if we (of course together with the EJB spec group) define that the
> EJB container must create the EJBs according to the effective AnnotatedType
> coming out after ProcessAnnotatedType? This would define that EJBs can also
> get modified via CDI Extensions. Some container do that already.
> The benefit of explicitly writing this down would obviously be that we
> would allow EJB to fully utilize the power of CDI Extensions in a portable
> way.
>
> Any objections, any ideas, any howtos?
>
> Let the ideas roll ;)
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
> --
> Tomas Remes
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151112/66185bd2/attachment-0001.html