Jakarta Persistence doesn’t need to define a dependency on CDI just to write about CDI in the Persistence specification document. Unless there is some deeper issue about needing to define Jakarta Persistence
API classes that compile against CDI API classes, no dependency should be required. If the deeper issue does exist, then it is one of the rare exceptions. If I followed the links that you provided in your original email, the changes are all in the specification
document text and some xml-related files – nothing that requires compilation against CDI.
My main point here is that I don’t want to see the more drastic solution for the corner case problem to be enforced for the sake of consistency across all integration points where it isn’t necessary in the
majority of cases. Possibly I didn’t understand your statement in the original email for the solution “to be consistent across the platform project.” I understood that to mean the solution will be applied to all integration
points across the Jakarta platform for consistency.
From:
jakartaee-platform-dev <jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Emily Jiang via jakartaee-platform-dev <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:45 AM
To: jakartaee-platform developer discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Emily Jiang <emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [cdi-dev] Discussion: The new structure of EE integration sections
Ondro, Nathan, What Ondro said does not address the dependency issue, which was the reason to have the 2 proposals. As for CDI, it puts dependencies on other specs
and other specs have dependencies on CDI, which creates circular dependencies.
|
This Message Is From an External Sender
|
|
This message came from outside your organization.
|
|
|
What Ondro said does not address the dependency issue, which was the reason to have the 2 proposals. As for CDI, it puts dependencies on other specs and other specs have dependencies on CDI, which creates
circular dependencies. For Persistence, as discussed on this week's platform call, the Persistence spec team does not want the integration to be present in that repo as it does not want to declare the dependency on CDI because Spring or others will use it
potentially.
I agree with Ondro’s response that introducing new specifications for integration requirements is overdoing it, and favor what he suggests in his
second paragraph below (can this be Proposal 3?), that the specification define the integration requirement to apply when the other Jakarta specification is present. I have used that approach many times in Jakarta specifications and it works very well: "In
environments/profiles where Jakarta specification X is available, … must happen." It helps to have the outermost specification--most distant from core profile or most distant from wave 1--define the requirement. Generally, that is easily done.
It should be an extremely rare case where this doesn’t solve the problem, and only in those exceptional cases should it be necessary that proposal
1 or 2 be used. I don’t want to see proposal 1 or 2 applied across the board to all integration points between specifications. That would cause unnecessary churn in specifications and burden already thinly stretched specification teams with additional work
that has little, if any, value.
From the 2 proposals, I favor the option 1 (already existing platform/profile specs) But I think a cleaner solution is that individual
specs like persistence, or servlet define this behavior in case CDI container is present. Faces and Transactions
|
This Message Is From an External Sender
|
|
This message came from outside your organization.
|
|
|
From the 2 proposals, I favor the option 1 (already existing platform/profile specs)
But I think a cleaner solution is that individual specs like persistence, or servlet define this behavior in case CDI container is present. Faces
and Transactions already do so, they define custom scopes or @Transactional interceptor. Other specs should do so too. If those specs don’t do accept that, the I would define it in the platform/profile specs as a last resort.
But introducing a new spec looks like an overkill for me.
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.
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
cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
--
|
