Antonio,<br><br>It's not my intention to prevent future usage of CDI lite in EE, if it makes sense some day. I was only saying that the only benefit of lite for EE 8 would be to work for a new EE profile and I don't want to go in that direction. That's why the target here is primary SE IMO. <br><br>Antoine<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">Le dim. 30 août 2015 à 08:47, Antonio Goncalves <<a href="mailto:antonio.goncalves@gmail.com">antonio.goncalves@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">@George, in your use case, would having basic dependency injection help ?<div><br></div><div>@Antoine If the future of Java EE is modularity, then having basic dependency injection *makes* sense. Even if Java EE 8 will not make any movement towards modularity, we hope that EE9 will. In these times of micro services, you could bundle basic DI instead of the all thing. So, in my opinion, it makes sense to think of it in EE too.</div></div><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div><i>"<span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px;white-space:pre-wrap">CDI lite is basic injection plus producer plus programmatic lookup plus <b>events</b>, so it's more than a fatter jsr 330"</span></i></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px;white-space:pre-wrap"><br></span></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px;white-space:pre-wrap">So you are thinking of having events in CDI Lite ? </span></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px;white-space:pre-wrap"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px;white-space:pre-wrap">Antonio</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px;white-space:pre-wrap"><br></span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 11:15 PM, arjan tijms <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:arjan.tijms@gmail.com" target="_blank">arjan.tijms@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Antonio Goncalves<br>
<<a href="mailto:antonio.goncalves@gmail.com" target="_blank">antonio.goncalves@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I remember talking with the JAX-RS guys (Java EE), years ago (back in EE6),<br>
> and their answer for not adopting CDI was "too heavy".<br>
<br>
</span>I can't find an exact reference anymore, but I somewhat remember that<br>
one of the reasons was also simply that CDI as a general solution<br>
finished late in Java EE 6, while JAX-RS finished earlier and had all<br>
the work for their own DI solution already done.<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra">-- <br><div><div dir="ltr">Antonio Goncalves <br>Software architect, Java Champion and Pluralsight author<br><br><a href="http://www.antoniogoncalves.org" target="_blank">Web site</a> | <a href="http://twitter.com/agoncal" target="_blank">Twitter</a> | <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal" target="_blank">LinkedIn</a> | <a href="http://pluralsight.com/training/Authors/Details/antonio-goncalves" target="_blank">Pluralsight</a> | <a href="http://www.parisjug.org" target="_blank">Paris JUG</a> | <a href="http://www.devoxx.fr" target="_blank">Devoxx France</a></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div>