Sorry for late feedback.
I think CDI is more and more important feature of Java EE and should be aligned with annotations in other SPECs.
Though there may be some backward compatibility issues, I prefer the option C.
And I have some concerns in annotations and CDI with respect to deployment performance.
I hope the annotation features can be more finely defined and can be scoped in view of the deployment performance in the future.
Software Innovation Evangelist
I've heard from a few of you on this, but I'd like to get feedback
from the rest of the expert group. There's 20 people on this
expert group, surely you all joined the expert group because you had
opinions about Java EE, right? You wanted to help us direct the
future of Java EE. You wanted to give us the benefit of your experience.
If you just wanted to watch, you could've joined the users list instead
of the expert group...
Let's hear it! What do you guys think?!?
(If you already responded to this thread, please resist the temptation
to jump in again. Let's let the others have their say.)
Bill Shannon wrote on 08/30/2012 01:58 PM:
From many of our recent discussions, it seems clear that CDI is
becoming more central to the Java EE programming model. For example:
- The expanded use of @Stereotype in my previous message.
- The use of CDI interceptors to provide container managed
transaction support beyond EJB.
- The potential future use of CDI interceptors to provide container
managed security support beyond EJB.
- The use of CDI interceptors to support Bean Validation method
- The discussion of "implicit producers" to allow use of @Inject
instead of @Resource to inject Java EE resources.
- The discussion around alignment of CDI managed beans and the
separate @ManagedBean spec.
- The introduction of a transaction scope and its use in the JMS
spec to simplify the programming model.
- The change being considered by the CDI expert group to enable
CDI by default, making it more attractive to use it for all
the items above.
At the same time we're finding that some specs, e.g., JAX-RS, are
hesitant to introduce a hard, or even soft, dependency on CDI,
instead insisting that all their new features must work in an
environment where there is no CDI.
In many ways this parallels what we saw with annotations. In
the beginning we found many people who didn't want to use annotations
and wanted us to make sure everything worked without use of
annotations. Now we're seeing many things that *only* work with
annotations, and annotations are well accepted by Java EE developers.
I suppose there's a natural lifecycle to acceptance of new
technologies, and I wonder where we are in that lifecycle with CDI?
Has CDI become a mature and accepted technology that we should use
I'd like to get a sense from this group as to what direction we
should provide to all the Java EE specs in regards to their use
of CDI. Here's a few obvious options:
A. Technologies that see a significant standalone (non-Java EE) use
should be fully functional without CDI. If necessary, any
required features that are similar to CDI features should be
defined and implemented in a way that doesn't depend on CDI.
B. Technologies should provide all major features in a way that
works without CDI. Some features may also be provided in a
different way that works well with CDI. Some less essential
features may only work with CDI. The implementation should
only have a soft dependency on CDI at most.
C. Technologies should provide features that work well with CDI
without duplicating any functionality in CDI. Use CDI wherever
it fits. The implementation may have a hard dependency on CDI
and may require CDI even when used in a standalone environment.
I'm sure you can think of other options as well.
What advice do you think we should give to other Java EE specs?