[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cdi-dev] About parsing beans.xml files in Lite
|
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
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?
LT
On 25. 01. 21 22:25, Jason Greene wrote:
Hi Manfred, response inline:
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.
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
