Re: [cdi-dev] CDI future - problems and proposal

[Matej Novotny <manovotn@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I think this list was meant more for what should/shouldn't be part of CDI Lite rather then whether those annotations should be housed in one specification or another.
I know it could be partially related in that having it moved would mean Lite doesn't need to do it. But that will take much more effort (read: 'time') on several spec fronts so I
would rather try and solve it in CDI-spec level and once settled on, we could try and proliferate changes to further specs.

Regards
Matej

----- Original Message -----
> From: "arjan tijms" <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "cdi developer discussions" <cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 6:00:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] CDI future - problems and proposal
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:09 PM Ladislav Thon < lthon@xxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
> 
> 
> or in retrospect shouldn't be in CDI
> in the first place. Things like:
> 
> - decorators
> - specialization
> - session scope
> - conversation scope
> - passivation
> - non-contextual injection
> 
> I always felt that just JSR 330/AtInject was way too small, while JSR 299/CDI
> might have been a tad too big. My personal pet peeve is the fact that CDI
> includes build-in beans for several Servlet types, such as
> HttpServletRequest. We tried hard before to get that out of CDI and into
> Servlet. Likewise, the build-in bean for Principal should likely belong in
> Jakarta Security, etc.
> 
> Though the conversation scope is technically not bound to Faces, maybe we
> should consider moving it to Faces anyway?
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Kind regards,
> Arjan Tijms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>