| Re: [cdi-dev] About parsing beans.xml files in Lite |
> As a matter of fact, we currently pour everything into a singular bean archive (which I have to say I came to like as it makes understanding the meaning of bean archive much simpler for users).
Ah that is a great point, totally forgot about that! I think we should
do this in Lite. Multiple bean archives made everything really confusing
for me when I started learning CDI.
This approach leads to the complication of merging beans.xml. What if the beans.xml has conflicts, which one takes precedence.
The proposal is that in Lite, we don't take beans.xml content into account. We "only" use it as a marker file to find JARs that should be part of the "singular" bean archive. So that is a non-issue, and, in fact, simplification :-)
What about enabling interceptors via beans.xml? Would the enablement be done via @Priority only? Your suggestion of discarding the contents of beans.xml is quite a big change.
> Tomas Langer also correctly mentioned that today you can have beans.xml with discovery mode "none" and therefore the presence of beans.xml can mean you don't want to process that archive.
> This is true, although I have to point out that I haven't really seen this used much. It is probably a remnant of CDI 1.0 where default discovery mode was explicit (instead of annotated) and where you needed to always have beans.xml present.
The only reason why I think we might want to detect beans.xml
configuring discovery mode to "none" is legacy JARs. Not sure how big of
a use case that is.
Open Liberty uses this for improving performance for migrated applications. The applications used CDI 1.0 and then migrated to CDI 1.2/2.0. Setting bean-discovery-mode="none" will disable the scanning, which improves the performance.
What I'd like to understand is, how much is that relevant when it comes to Lite? My guess would be: not much.
_______________________________________________On 16. 01. 21 0:16, Emily Jiang wrote:
> As a matter of fact, we currently pour everything into a singular bean archive (which I have to say I came to like as it makes understanding the meaning of bean archive much simpler for users).
Ah that is a great point, totally forgot about that! I think we should
do this in Lite. Multiple bean archives made everything really confusing
for me when I started learning CDI.
This approach leads to the complication of merging beans.xml. What if the beans.xml has conflicts, which one takes precedence.The proposal is that in Lite, we don't take beans.xml content into account. We "only" use it as a marker file to find JARs that should be part of the "singular" bean archive. So that is a non-issue, and, in fact, simplification :-)
> Tomas Langer also correctly mentioned that today you can have beans.xml with discovery mode "none" and therefore the presence of beans.xml can mean you don't want to process that archive.
> This is true, although I have to point out that I haven't really seen this used much. It is probably a remnant of CDI 1.0 where default discovery mode was explicit (instead of annotated) and where you needed to always have beans.xml present.
The only reason why I think we might want to detect beans.xml
configuring discovery mode to "none" is legacy JARs. Not sure how big of
a use case that is.
Open Liberty uses this for improving performance for migrated applications. The applications used CDI 1.0 and then migrated to CDI 1.2/2.0. Setting bean-discovery-mode="none" will disable the scanning, which improves the performance.What I'd like to understand is, how much is that relevant when it comes to Lite? My guess would be: not much.
LT
ThanksEmily
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 4:37 PM Ladislav Thon <lthon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12. 01. 21 17:26, Matej Novotny wrote:
> As a matter of fact, we currently pour everything into a singular bean archive (which I have to say I came to like as it makes understanding the meaning of bean archive much simpler for users).
Ah that is a great point, totally forgot about that! I think we should
do this in Lite. Multiple bean archives made everything really confusing
for me when I started learning CDI.
> Tomas Langer also correctly mentioned that today you can have beans.xml with discovery mode "none" and therefore the presence of beans.xml can mean you don't want to process that archive.
> This is true, although I have to point out that I haven't really seen this used much. It is probably a remnant of CDI 1.0 where default discovery mode was explicit (instead of annotated) and where you needed to always have beans.xml present.
The only reason why I think we might want to detect beans.xml
configuring discovery mode to "none" is legacy JARs. Not sure how big of
a use case that is.
LT
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
--
Thanks
Emily
_______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev