[cdi-dev] do runtime CDI implementations have to support build-time exte

[Ladislav Thon <lthon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I feel like we spent almost the entire hour on the call yesterday 
running in circles around the question in subject. IMHO, this is a waste 
of precious meeting time that we need to use to cover other important 
topics. This topic should move here, to the list.

I'll try to summarize. I think we agreed that we want CDI Lite to be 
part of the CDI spec, and that we want CDI Lite to be a subset of CDI. 
That's all rather nice and easy, until it comes to extensions.

For CDI Lite, we're trying to build a new extension API, because 
Portable Extensions are inherently runtime constructs, while we want to 
allow build-time implementations of CDI. This leads to the following 
little matrix:

             runtime impl     build-time impl
---------------------------------------------
Portable         yes            impossible
Extensions

build-time       ???               yes
extensions

Some people argue that what I marked "???" should also be "yes". That 
should in theory be possible, but I'd argue that in practice, this will 
lead to issues that we currently can't predict.

I suggested yesterday on the call that we should specify something like 
"runtime implementations are free to support build-time extensions at 
their own will", and let's see what happens in a year.

That obviously isn't the only possible solution. I'd like to hear 
everyone's opinion, and let's keep in mind that we eventually need to 
agree on something :-)

Thanks,

LT