+1 on keeping most important discussions on the mailing list. Very difficult for most of us to stay updated and participate otherwise.
Reza Rahman Jakarta EE Ambassador, Author, Blogger, Speaker
Please note views expressed here are my own as an individual community member and do not reflect the views of my employer.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Manfred Riem <m_riem@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 1/25/21 9:46 AM (GMT-05:00) To: cdi developer discussions <cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] About parsing beans.xml files in Lite
Hi all,
Again I would have to agree with Mark on this one. I am reading this to keep apprised on where
CDI is going and unless everything is being properly accounted for on this mailing list you are
most definitely cutting out folks.
Not only that you will have an incomplete record on why a decision was made and you will
either a) have to have a complete transcript posted to this mailing list so we can read up
on what was discussed, or b) archive the video on this mailing list somehow. Writing up
minutes just won’t do as you will undoubtedly summarize from your own perspective.
Thanks!
Kind regards,
Manfred Riem
From: cdi-dev <cdi-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
Mark Struberg
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 1:17 AM
To: cdi developer discussions <cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] About parsing beans.xml files in Lite
Hi Ladislav!
OSS is mostly based on mailing lists. This is what allows people from different time zones and company background to contribute. Additional online meetings are of course great, but they should not replace information via the mailing list.
And I do absolutely assume positive intent. I just wanted to set the baseline.
By excluding Extensions you imo remove 50% of CDI functionality. Basically most of the integration works via Extensions. Try to run any MicroProfile implementation without Extensions. You will not even be able to start them up properly.
Afaiu you want to have the container pick up beans.xml as a pure marker (like in CDI-1.0) but with the bean discovery mode 'annotated', isn't? I fear that's not compatible with what is defined in CDI right now.
On 25. 01. 21 7:58, Mark Struberg wrote:
Once again: if CDI-lite is not binary and otherwise just a subset of CDI, then PLEASE find a different name for it.
How is anything of the discussed not a strict subset of CDI?
What you want is more like a JSR-330 container with some sprinkles from CDI features here and there - but with a different API.
I don't know about others, but from what I've seen (and suggested), we want like 90 % of CDI (or, as I like to call it, "CDI, the good parts"), not "some sprinkles here and there".
Yes you probably started at CDI mind wise, but now you are somewhere completely else. Please do not trash CDI by adding something else!
Or to say it in different words:
If you call it CDI-lite, then people expect that they will be able to run those libs on a fully blown CDI server as well.
That is what I expect as well.
The _only_ exception is extensions, because those just can't be taken to build-time. From the remaining API, my proposal is to take like 90 % of it verbatim and don't change anything there (even
though there would be very good reasons to make changes!).
It this is not the case (because the API is different), then please don't call it CDI-lite. The spec might still be valuable, but please go find another name!
I'd also like to ask you one thing: please assume positive intent, and feel free to attend the regular calls if you think we need to clarify anything.
Thanks,
LT
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 :-)
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
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.
My statement was about the use case assessment.
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
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
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
--
_______________________________________________
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
--
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
|
