[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
[cdi-dev] do runtime CDI implementations have to support build-time extensions?
|
Hi,
I feel like we spent almost the entire hour on the call yesterday
running in circles around the question in subject. IMHO, this is a waste
of precious meeting time that we need to use to cover other important
topics. This topic should move here, to the list.
I'll try to summarize. I think we agreed that we want CDI Lite to be
part of the CDI spec, and that we want CDI Lite to be a subset of CDI.
That's all rather nice and easy, until it comes to extensions.
For CDI Lite, we're trying to build a new extension API, because
Portable Extensions are inherently runtime constructs, while we want to
allow build-time implementations of CDI. This leads to the following
little matrix:
runtime impl build-time impl
---------------------------------------------
Portable yes impossible
Extensions
build-time ??? yes
extensions
Some people argue that what I marked "???" should also be "yes". That
should in theory be possible, but I'd argue that in practice, this will
lead to issues that we currently can't predict.
I suggested yesterday on the call that we should specify something like
"runtime implementations are free to support build-time extensions at
their own will", and let's see what happens in a year.
That obviously isn't the only possible solution. I'd like to hear
everyone's opinion, and let's keep in mind that we eventually need to
agree on something :-)
Thanks,
LT