User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1
Hello,
Regarding point 2, my suggestion would be Compiled CDI, as all I
can see of the point of the proposal of CDI-Lite is that is can be
done at compile time for the likes of GraalVM.
Jonathan Coustick
On 26/01/2021 12:40, Antoine
Sabot-Durand wrote:
2 kind topics in the same thread here:
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.