Hi,
As it is clear that we are NOT gravitating
towards a solution here I would like to pivot and propose an
alternative that could be hopefully acceptable to all parties
involved.
- Drop the
notion of CDI Lite
- Introduce
the notion of CDI profiles
- Define 3
profiles for the CDI specification
- CDI
- CDI – CP
(Core Profile)
- CDI – BTF
(Build Time Profile)
- Make 3c an
optional profile as far as the specification is concerned
(EE runtimes should not have to be required to support 3c)
Where 3b is a proper subset of 3a and 3c is
a subgroup of 3b (or in other words 3c uses 3b and it is
allowed to add its own incompatible “sugar”).
Thoughts?
Thanks!
Kind regards,
Manfred Riem
Hi,
On 26. 01. 21 15:27, Manfred Riem wrote:
I am sorry you think me asking for the
one defining feature is inconvenient and make you feel like
going around and around, but from my perspective it is a
very important question to answer.
no, that's not inconvenient, I understand
the desire to have a "defining feature" -- I'm just pointing
out that we already went through a very similar discussion
(here on this mailing list).
What is the one defining feature for CDI
itself? I would argue when most folks think about CDI they
think Dependency Injection.
So my question stands! What would most
folks think this to be named variant would stand for?
Everything I have heard so far does not
tell me that as I have only heard implementation concerns.
I don't think it's an implementation concern. If the
specification can't be implemented under certain constraints,
then either such implementation doesn't make any sense, or the
specification needs to change. I personally believe it's the
latter.
LT
Thanks!
Kind regards,
Manfred Riem