Skip to main content

[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: CDI positioning

  • From: Florent BENOIT <Florent.Benoit@...>
  • To: jsr342-experts@...
  • Subject: [javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: CDI positioning
  • Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 10:26:46 +0200
  • List-id: <jsr342-experts.javaee-spec.java.net>

A bit late but I'm also in favor of option D.

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Deepak Anupalli <deepak@...> wrote:
All or some of the options (A, B, C or D) would either lead to duplication of CDI functionality into the respective specs or could add to incompatibility across containers in understanding the (non) CDI dependency.

CDI has lot of features which may not appeal to every other specification, if there is a way we can subset essential CDI features i.e., Injection, Interceptors & Stereotypes (CDI Lite), there shouldn't be so much resistance from other spec leads to embrace it. I'm not sure given the timeframe for Java EE 7 this would be possible.

@Context existed before @Inject came into existence and definitely needs standardization.

-Deepak


On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir@...> wrote:
We can't *actually* get rid of @Context, as it's in JAX-RS 1.0.

What (D) means, in our opinion, is that @Context should work in CDI/EJB beans and could be implemented as a CDI extension.  What we're more concerned with is duplicating BeanManager, @RequestScoped and other annotations, component/config injection, etc...

On 31 Aug 2012, at 16:22, Antonio Goncalves wrote:

> Well, that would be awesome, but is there anybody here who is part of JAX-RS Expert Group and could tell us if it's doable or not ?
>
> Same, do we know what the JSF 2.2 EG plans to do with @ManagedBean vs @Named ?
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir@...> wrote:
> Well, I think based on D, injection is something that CDI provides, and JAX-RS is fully functional without injection, so JAX-RS shouldn't provide @Context at all as it duplicates functionality from CDI.
>
> On 31 Aug 2012, at 16:06, Antonio Goncalves wrote:
>
> > Pete, what would that mean for the following example ? This is the way you inject UriInfo with JAX-RS :
> >
> >
> > @Path(
> > "/resource"
> > )
> >
> > public
> >  class Resource {
> >
> > @Context
> >
> >
> > private UriInfo info;
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Injection is made with @Context in a standalone mode without CDI. But in a Java EE container I would really like to use @Inject rather than @Context (so the code is not portable anymore without CDI) :
> >
> >
> > @Path(
> > "/resource"
> > )
> >
> > public
> >  class Resource {
> >
> > @Inject
> >
> >
> > private UriInfo info;
> >
> >
> > Antonio
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir@...> wrote:
> > Bill, et al
> >
> > We would like to propose a slight variant on option C:
> >
> > D. Technologies that can be standalone specifications (JMS, JAX-RS) should be fully functional without CDI, but they should not duplicate any features of CDI.  When CDI is present, these technologies should leverage and integrate with CDI where appropriate.
> >
> > On 30 Aug 2012, at 21:58, Bill Shannon wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >  level validation.
> > >
> > > - 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
> > > widely?
> > >
> > >
> > > 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?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Antonio Goncalves
> > Software architect and Java Champion
> >
> > Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Paris JUG | Devoxx France
>
>
>
>
> --
> Antonio Goncalves
> Software architect and Java Champion
>
> Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Paris JUG | Devoxx France





[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: CDI positioning

Deepak Anupalli 10/05/2012

[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: CDI positioning

Florent BENOIT 10/08/2012

<Possible follow-up(s)>

[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: CDI positioning

Nitta, Minoru 10/08/2012

[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: CDI positioning

Werner Keil 10/08/2012

[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: CDI positioning

Iida, Minehiko 10/09/2012
 
 
Close
loading
Please Confirm
Close