|
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,
Pavel
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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.
WDYT?
Cheers,
Sebastian
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,
Pavel
On 06/06/2017 18:38, Guillermo
González de Agüero wrote:
Hi,
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.
Regards,
Guillermo González de Agüero
|
|
|
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.
WDYT?
Cheers,
Sebastian
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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,
Pavel
On 06/06/2017 18:38, Guillermo
González de Agüero wrote:
Hi,
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.
Regards,
Guillermo González de Agüero
|
|
|
Arjan Tijms
Hi, On Thursday, June 8, 2017, Markus KARG < markus@...> wrote: Is the Payara nightly build already able to execute JAX-RS 2.1 applications?
Not at the moment, but pieces of work for it have been done (PRs pending) and I hope to be able to work on that ASAP, so should be sooner rather than later.
Kind regards, Arjan Tijms
Hi, It's indeed a tad too late if the Proposed Final Draft is only days away. Perhaps in the meantime individual application servers can do a little bit more to integrate with CDI out of the box, like JBoss already does today. I certainly like to see what we can do for this at Payara. On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Guillermo González de Agüero <z06.guillermo@...> wrote: Hi Pavel, I understand it. We (the community) should have raised this before. I just hope we have this issue as high priority for the next version. Guillermo González de Agüero 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,
Pavel 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.
Regards, 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
|
|
|
Is the Payara nightly build already able to execute JAX-RS 2.1 applications?
From: jaxrs-spec@javaee.groups.io [mailto:jaxrs-spec@javaee.groups.io] On Behalf Of Arjan Tijms
Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Juni 2017 23:22
To: jaxrs-spec@javaee.groups.io
Subject: Re: [jaxrs] CDI integration - decision Hi, It's indeed a tad too late if the Proposed Final Draft is only days away. Perhaps in the meantime individual application servers can do a little bit more to integrate with CDI out of the box, like JBoss already does today. I certainly like to see what we can do for this at Payara. On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Guillermo González de Agüero <z06.guillermo@...> wrote: Hi Pavel, I understand it. We (the community) should have raised this before. I just hope we have this issue as high priority for the next version. Guillermo González de Agüero 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,
Pavel 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.
Regards, 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
|
|
|
Arjan Tijms
Hi,
It's indeed a tad too late if the Proposed Final Draft is only days away.
Perhaps in the meantime individual application servers can do a little bit more to integrate with CDI out of the box, like JBoss already does today. I certainly like to see what we can do for this at Payara.
Kind regards, Arjan Tijms
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Guillermo González de Agüero <z06.guillermo@...> wrote: Hi Pavel,
I understand it. We (the community) should have raised this before.
I just hope we have this issue as high priority for the next version.
Thanks for your efforts!
Regards
Guillermo González de Agüero
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,
Pavel
On 06/06/2017 18:38, Guillermo González
de Agüero wrote:
Hi,
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.
Regards,
Guillermo González de Agüero
|
|
|
Guillermo González de Agüero
Hi Pavel,
I understand it. We (the community) should have raised this before.
I just hope we have this issue as high priority for the next version.
Thanks for your efforts!
Regards
Guillermo González de Agüero
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,
Pavel
On 06/06/2017 18:38, Guillermo González
de Agüero wrote:
Hi,
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.
Regards,
Guillermo González de Agüero
|
|
|
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,
Pavel
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On 06/06/2017 18:38, Guillermo González
de Agüero wrote:
Hi,
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.
Regards,
Guillermo González de Agüero
|
|
|
Guillermo González de Agüero
Hi,
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. Regards, 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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
