1) Related to initial thread topic : Beans.xml. Beyond bean archive and discovery, I think that the issue here is the lack of a global configuration for CDI in the deployment. This topic has been discussed during CDI 2.0 specification work and was not retain. Now that we see more and more CDI usage where bean archive concept is not very relevant (CDI SE and future “CDI Lite”) we could think about a global configuration again
2) Regarding other points
- Naming : CDI Lite is not a final name. If you have a suggestion please share it
- Portable extensions : they are not going anywhere or being deprecated. so I don’t really get point that imply that it is the goal. It’s not
- Meeting Feedback on the ML. I agree it could be improved. We’ll see what we can do about this. ML would also be easier to follow if topics wouldn’t be mixed up : it’s not very expensive to start a new thread
- CDI Lite content : nothing important is yet decided. If you read the meeting minutes [1], you’ll see that we agreed on a few things until now. Discussion is still open. As an effort of being more asynchronous we could relaunch workshop doc like we did I for CDI 2.0
Le mar. 26 janv. 2021 à 09:18, Ladislav Thon <lthon@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
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?
To clarify if you say
subset do you mean that everything that works in this
version of CDI would also work in the “Full” version of
CDI?
As that is what subset
means to me.
If you are a CDI API user (e.g. a typical EE
developer) then yes.
If you are an integrator extending CDI by
distributing an extension then it depends on if the Full
implementation chooses to implement the build-compatible
extension SPI. In an ideal world we would have one extension
SPI, but the problem is that we can’t change/evolve the
existing extension SPI without impacting compatibility. Full
implementations expect to continue to offer that
compatibility so we effectively arrive at two extension
SPIs.