Re: CDI integration - decision

Pavel Bucek

Hi Sebastian,

that's easy to write in the spec, the consequences are not so simple to consider and implement. Most of the CDI changes won't be in the API at all - its not about the produced API JAR, that's only a tip of the iceberg - don't forget that RI and TCK have to be ready for PFD submission. The sentence you've presented would easily take >2 weeks to implement.

Also, from my experience, doing irreversible changes at the last moment is generally not a good idea, especially when we need to make sure everything else is done in acceptable quality.

Thanks and regards,

On 09/06/2017 03:53, Sebastian Daschner wrote:

Hi Pavel,

Totally understandable.

However, let me raise an issue that is related to the CDI topic -- I think the whole CDI integration contains several, different concerns at once:

For developers it would be very helpful to @Inject JAX-RS managed objects -- mainly UriInfo -- into other (CDI) managed beans. We stumbled across this several times and I think it is an easy thing to require in the spec, something like: If the container supports JAX-RS and CDI/JSR 330, then UriInfo (maybe among others) must be injectable with an appropriate scope (here request scoped I guess). Wouldn't involve any other changes in the API.



On 06/08/2017 12:21 AM, Pavel Bucek wrote:

Hi Guillermo,

I really appreciate your activity around this area, but at this point, I don't think we should consider pursuing any change. We are days from Proposed Final Draft and we still don't have ready everything we HAVE TO deliver. Adding any other (non-trivial) changes like this is like sawing off the branch we’re sitting on..

Thanks and regards,

On 06/06/2017 18:38, Guillermo González de Agüero wrote:

I invited Antoine Sabot Durand (CDI Spec lead) to join the conversation and he replied me today that he and the Weld team will have a look at the issue as they have already been helping other spec integrate with CDI.

CDI 2.0 is already final but maybe they have some ideas that could help here going some step foward. I ask you and Santiago and the rest of the EG please to wait a little for them to comment here before taking a definitive decission.


Guillermo González de Agüero

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Pavel Bucek <pavel.bucek@...> wrote:
Dear experts,

Thank you for a productive discussion about CDI integration. We now have a good understanding of what can be achieved when using the new CDI 2.0 API.

Our recent analysis has concluded that providing a better CDI integration would require more experimentation than what we can do in this minor release. We also don't want to introduce "hard" dependency on CDI API to the JAX-RS API as many JAX-RS developers rely on running JAX-RS outside of CDI context.

We agree that CDI can be used as the "glue" of the whole Java EE platform and JAX-RS can do more in terms of the CDI integration when running in a Java EE container. Currently, such enhancements are NOT forbidden at the spec level and JAX-RS providers are free to introduce support that goes beyond what JAX-RS spec mandates. Further experiment in this area can help to gather more feedback for any future re-evaluation of improved CDI/JAX-RS integration story. Also, this feedback may help CDI owners to provide public API enhancements to enable full JAX-RS /CDI integration in a portable way.

Thanks again for the discussion on the mailing list.

Best regards,
Pavel & Santiago

Join to automatically receive all group messages.