Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [jakartaee-spec-project-leads] Jakarta EE c

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

+1 to both of these
comments from Reza.  If the CDI re-factoring is not sufficient, then
using the Common Annotations project would be my preference.  We may
need to expand on the scope of the Common Annotations project to allow
for some of the suggestions, but that would be easier and less confusing
than starting a new project.

---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter 
STSM, Jakarta EE and MicroProfile architect @ IBM
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx     Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter

Part-time schedule: Tue, Wed, Thu (off on Mon and Fri)



From:
       "Reza
Rahman" <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
       "jakartaee-platform
developer discussions" <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
       jakartaee-spec-project-leads@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
       09/13/2021
19:04
Subject:
       [EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [jakartaee-spec-project-leads] Jakarta EE
common functionality
Sent
by:        "jakartaee-platform-dev"
<jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>

---

It is entirely possible I
am missing something here - isn’t this what CDI Core/Lite is supposed
to address? Otherwise the Annotations API is probably a fine place. There
is certainly precedent for such use of the API. Reza Rahman Jakarta EE
It is entirely possible I am missing something here - isn’t this what
CDI Core/Lite is supposed to address? Otherwise the Annotations API is
probably a fine place. There is certainly precedent for such use of the
API.

Reza Rahman
Jakarta EE Ambassador, Author, Blogger,
Speaker

Please note views expressed here are
my own as an individual community member and do not reflect the views of
my employer.

On Sep 13, 2021, at 5:18 AM, Dmitry Kornilov
<dmitry.kornilov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Hi,

 

On the last platform meeting we touched a topic of a common functionality across different specifications in Jakarta EE.  Currently specifications are not using much shared code. As the result, some functionality is implemented differently in different specifications which makes the platform APIs inconsistent. We've discussed the CDI object model API which can be used in other specifications such as JSON Binding without adding a hard dependency to CDI. Servlet team also said that they were planning to add a similar API to their spec. Another example is generic type holder object which is used in CDI, JSON-B and maybe some other specifications. It needs to be resolved at the platform level and there are many ways how it can be done. We can create additional specifications, move shared code to a separate repository and release it as part of the platform project, or move code to Jakarta Annotations which is de-facto only one specifications containing some shared code.  There could be more options.

 

I would like to initiate a community discussion around this topic. Please post your ideas to this thread. I am planning to create a meeting when there are enough ideas for discussion, possibly next week.

 

Thanks,

Dmitry

_______________________________________________
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