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

[Mark Struberg <struberg@xxxxxxxxxx>]

But this already got addressed in CDI-2.0 with the split into SE and EE parts of the spec.

A container not intended for JavaEE is free to not implement those Beans.

Or like we do it in Apache OpenWebBeans - keep it modular with a core which is just 700kB in size and all the integration is added on top of it.

LieGrue,

strub

Am 22.10.2020 um 18:00 schrieb arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>:

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