[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [cdi-dev] CDI future - problems and proposal
|
I personally agree that things like session scope, conversation
scope, Principal injection, HttpServletRequest injection etc.
should move to the respective specs (similarly to how
@Transactional is defined by JTA and not by CDI).
(Request scope is a bit special in my opinion, because there's a
lot of other notions of "request" besides "HTTP request", and I
think this should most likely stay in CDI.)
LT
On 23. 10. 20 13:43, arjan tijms wrote:
Hi,
I
think this list was meant more for what should/shouldn't
be part of CDI Lite rather then whether those annotations
should be housed in one specification or another.
I know it could be partially related in that having it
moved would mean Lite doesn't need to do it.
I hear you, though the topic of the thread is "CDI
future", not "What's in CDI Lite" ;) Hence why I took it
to discuss the CDI Future and not just CDI Lite. Of course
I realise most are eager to discuss CDI Lite as the next
big future.
Apart from conceptual soundness, a practical reason to
move some of these things is to evolve them. Given the
current composition of the CDI team, I'm not sure people
want to invest time in evolving Faces (JSF) or Servlet
things. But maybe I'm wrong there.
Specifically for the injection of HttpServletRequest,
there's the long running matter of *which* version of
the HttpServletRequest is injected. The one as it enters
the container? The one handed to the last Servlet
(potentially wrapped by Filters), one as seen by an
included resource? At the moment this is not at all clear,
and containers essentially now just give you an arbitrary
instance.
Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev