[cdi-dev] New version for CDI bootstrap

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Hello Antoine,

does it make sense to have close() and shutdown() in CDISE? Isn't close()
enough?

in findContainerBuilder: iterator shouldn't be called twice I think


About naming: CDISE looks too much an anagram so maybe StandaloneCDI (I'd
prefer "Standalone" to "SE") or even UserManagedCDI
About packaging: ".standalone" is good enough IMO



Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Wordpress Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
<http://www.tomitribe.com> | JavaEE Factory
<https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>

2016-06-20 10:47 GMT+02:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine at sabot-durand.net>:

> Hi guys,
>
> I posted modification on PR 290 [1] according to last meeting.
>
> I still have 2 points that stays open for me (you may have more) :
>
> - Place and name of the package: should we decide to package SE support in
> a specific jar, it will be probably better to have a better package name at
> a higher level
>
> - Name for CDISE class. Perhaps using Container or SeContainer  would be
> better. WDYT ?
>
> Antoine
>
> [1] https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/290
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160620/6847c386/attachment.html