> The "blocker" is the current extension model which is incompatible with build time approaches and overreach that exists within the API (ConversionScope anyone?).
The conversation scope is not ingrained in the API let alone extension API. It's an extra scope that is shipped with CDI, but everyone agrees it should move to JSF. Just like everyone (except for this one Jetty guy) agrees that the responsibility for HttpServletRequest injection should move to Servlet.
> The hostility from some on this mailing list is actually not particularly surprising given vested interests but disappointing nonetheless.
Do you mean me? It's not about being hostile, it's about loving Java EE, finding it useful and doing real work with it. Read what I write with a big smile and a number of hearts ;)
Think about how the Spring community would react if someone was going to change the core Spring Bean container in such a way Spring Boot and Spring Regular would not be compatible with it anymore, or using different names and interfaces and such ;)
Only speaking for myself, but static CDI is a cool extra feature, but it should be a cool extra feature. Not change names for the sake of changing them and doing things differently for the sake of doing it differently.
my perspective it is a
very important question to answer.
