Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [cdi-dev] Discussion: The new structure of EE integration sections

The Proposal 2 is what has been voiced during CDI calls by multiple people (me included) but has been repeatedly decided against; although I fail to recall the reasons now.
I am definitely for option 2 as that's way simpler to keep track of as opposed to creating multitude of other separate projects.

As for the ownership I don't see that as a con, or rather, I don't think there is much difference between putting the spec/tcks into platform bits and into separate "EE integration" project.
After all, it's integration of spec X and spec Y which already implies there should two be interested parties participating on that spec part and relevant TCKs.
So maybe it would be even better to have these parts stored on a "neutral ground" so to speak (platform spec/tck) so that both parties can cooperate there without arguing whose responsibility that is based on where that code currently resides.

Just my 0.02$

On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 4:19 PM Emily Jiang via cdi-dev <cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Further to this week's discussion regarding where to put EE integration chapters for Jakarta Specifications, we need to discuss offline to evaluate the approaches. At the moment, CDI EE was proposed to be a new spec (see here) while Jakarta Persistence with CDI integration was proposed to be added to the platform specification (see here). It is better to be consistent across the platform project.

Context: some Jakarta EE specifications have integration parts with other Jakarta EE specifications, such as CDI or potentially Jakarta Persistence.

Issue: These dependencies might introduce some circular dependencies among the specs. In order to avoid the circular dependencies, the integration parts need to be somewhere else.

Proposal 1: Create a new specification to hold all of the integration part, such as CDI EE, Persistence EE
The ownership is clear to start with but it might not be once the relevant specs start adding tcks.

The number of specs might be increased dramatically.
For some certification with web/core profile or platform, separate parts are to be spelled to differentiate web/core profile or platform implementers.

Proposal 2: put the integration part to Core/Web Profile or Platform specifications under separate modules.
The number of the specs will not change.
It is clear that certification for core/web profile and platform are clear which tcks are to be executed.
This can be released when releasing the platform or web profile or core profile. However, these TCKs can be released individually.

The ownership is less clear. It might not be an issue if the involved spec teams work together on this or the tests clearly document the owners.

Please add other proposals and cons/pros I missed.

cdi-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top