[cdi-dev] Merging JSR-330 into CDI

Mark Struberg struberg at yahoo.de
Sun Mar 20 03:34:48 EDT 2016

What are the benefits?

I mean serious, what does CDI gain? 

I can at least tell you what it hurts:

TL/DR: Instead of claiming HOW cool it would be please show WHAT you like to change. I like to see CODE to show possible benefits. Before that I don't waste any more energy, and you should neither.

long version:

1.) A lot specs are currently worded to only need JSR-330 for users. That way they run fine with CDI, Spring, etc. E.g. JBatch, Bean-Validation, etc. What is wrong with that?

2.) What changes do you need in atinject? We had a few ideas and sent them to the JSR-330 EG a year ago. We had good discussions but none of our wishes was worked out because WE failed to make final suggestions!
The atinject EG (Bob, Jürgen) has been responsive. At least MUCH more responsive than other EG leaders these days... So I fail to see why the atinject EG is 'inactive since 5 years'. That's just wrong information.

3.) We cannot simply take the javax.inject package and maintain it in CDI. It is forbidden to split a java package into multiple specs.

4.) We also cannot just amend the annotations and take them 'over'. That would require the EC to officially move the maintenance of atinject to the CDI EG. Or even requires a handover from the atinject EG. I'm not sure about that

5.) again: WHAT DO WE GAIN? I always hear claims that it would be oh so great. But then again: Show me an example what we would gain from it! Stop trashtalking but show CODE instead!

6.) Our CDI-2.0 roadmap is full of stuff we still need to deliver. The EG is busy as hell to get this done. You might add this to a CDI-3.0 wishlist, but that's it for now imo.


7.) The JSR-330 spec had an important political role back then. I know most people don't know that, but it's still great to have this little peace which managed to make peace. Not peace between Spring and EE as many people believe, back then it was more that it brought mainly peace between CDI and most of the rest of JavaEE EGs! Remember that we haven't been allowed to target Java SE in CDI-1.0? Remember that we were force to have the 'for Java Enterprise' in the spec name? Remember that we had big battles with EJB? No, then just take it as granted and let it rest...


More information about the cdi-dev mailing list