Topics

CDI integration - decision


Pavel Bucek
 

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


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






Pavel Bucek
 

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

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







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


El mié., 7 de junio de 2017 17:17, Pavel Bucek <pavel.bucek@...> escribió:

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

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

El mié., 7 de junio de 2017 17:17, Pavel Bucek <pavel.bucek@...> escribió:

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

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.

 

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

El mié., 7 de junio de 2017 17:17, Pavel Bucek <pavel.bucek@...> escribió:

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

 

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,

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



 

 

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.

 

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

El mié., 7 de junio de 2017 17:17, Pavel Bucek <pavel.bucek@...> escribió:

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

 

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



 

 

 


Sebastian Daschner
 

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

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








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,
Pavel


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

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