| Re: [cdi-dev] About parsing beans.xml files in Lite |
To be honest, I think many of us are still very uncomfortable because this is uncertain territory. We are essentially about to create a profile that kind of implies a subset of the full CDI specification but actually is an incompatible variant (and a subset). The potential problem this causes is that it may result in unexpected surprises for users that may not be paying that much attention. Imagine if a user goes from a CDI lite environment to a full CDI environment and extensions they used to use suddenly break (and vise versa). Now, I fully understand the need and support CDI in general going in this direction. I just think something needs to be done a bit better and maybe it's just the name (so picking a name that does not tend to imply a subset but rather a variant). 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: 1/26/21 9:27 AM (GMT-05:00) To: cdi developer discussions <cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] About parsing beans.xml files in Lite Hi,
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.
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.
Thanks!
Kind regards, Manfred Riem
From: cdi-dev <cdi-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
Ladislav Thon
Here's my take at "one defining feature", though it really is the same as what Jason wrote: decouple the "initialization" phase (where beans are discovered, extensions executed etc. etc.) from the "runtime" phase (where the application just runs) so that these 2 phases can be executed in 2 different JVM instances. Note that I already wrote this here on the list at least once. At this point, I feel like we're running around in circles, attacking the same strawman over and over and over and over. That is not productive. How come we got from a very specific quesion on which everyone's opinion would be very much welcome, to debating "what is CDI Lite", again? LT On 25. 01. 21 22:25, Jason Greene wrote:
|