Hi,
As it is clear that we are NOT gravitating towards a solution here I would like to pivot and propose an alternative that could be hopefully acceptable to all parties involved.
- Drop the notion of CDI Lite
- Introduce the notion of CDI profiles
- Define 3 profiles for the CDI specification
- CDI
- CDI – CP (Core Profile)
- CDI – BTF (Build Time Profile)
- Make 3c an optional profile as far as the specification is concerned (EE runtimes should not have to be required to support 3c)
Where 3b is a proper subset of 3a and 3c is a subgroup of 3b (or in other words 3c uses 3b and it is allowed to add its own incompatible “sugar”).
Thoughts?
Thanks!
Kind regards,
Manfred Riem
From: cdi-dev <cdi-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
Ladislav Thon
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 7:59 AM
To: cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] About parsing beans.xml files in Lite
Hi,
On 26. 01. 21 15:27, Manfred Riem wrote:
I am sorry you think me asking for the one defining feature is inconvenient and make you feel like going around and around, but from my perspective it is a very important question to answer.
no, that's not inconvenient, I understand the desire to have a "defining feature" -- I'm just pointing out that we already went through a very similar discussion (here on this mailing list).
What is the one defining feature for CDI itself? I would argue when most folks think about CDI they think Dependency Injection.
So my question stands! What would most folks think this to be named variant would stand for?
Everything I have heard so far does not tell me that as I have only heard implementation concerns.
I don't think it's an implementation concern. If the specification can't be implemented under certain constraints, then either such implementation doesn't make any sense, or the specification needs to change. I personally believe it's the latter.
LT
Thanks!
Kind regards,
Manfred Riem
