Deepak, Pete, all,
Thanks a lot for that discussion, especially Antonio, you add a lot of good points even if not everyone may always be happy to hear or solve them;-)
I had many discussions with other speakers at JavaOne this week, and not just one said, "CDI made JavaEE's Day" (to quote Clint Eastwood from one of his more popular speeches;-)
If the main focus of EE7 is "Simplification" or "Consolidation" while "True PaaS" among other items were deferred, then these redundant terms used in a similar way must not be introduced!
Spec Leads of e.g. the Identity or other JSRs carefully avoided such mistakes and we ended up having either ID or Id in front of many otherwise redundant types that exist in other JSRs like JPA with similar but not entirely identical purpose.
(Identity Attributes need e.g. query and sort of Persistence, but that can be far more diverse than traditional RMDBS, and sources require "Mix & Match", "Overlay" or other techniques common at best in JCA or JCR)
So if a JSR cannot avoid duplicating CDI features instead of just using it, then at least it mustn't pollute the ecosystem with redundant annotations or keywords.
Pete knows, some of that had to be done between 330 and CDI and if it hadn't been resolved, both JSR-330 and CDI would define @Inject without caring about one another.
Let's not go there now.
[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: CDI positioning