Linda/all,
Thanks, I in fact offered Pete to join the CDI 1.1 EG which he accepted, but
somewhere in the administrative "belly" of PMO the forms I provided as part
of joining must still be lying undigested. Hope this gets processed soon?
Regards,
Werner
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Linda DeMichiel <linda.demichiel_at_oracle.com
> wrote:
> As a followup to this dialogue (thanks Antonio and Pete!), I'd like to
> encourage all members of this group to subscribe to the users list. It
> serves
> both as a reflector of the jsr-342-experts email list (so that members of
> the
> community can follow our activity) and as a forum where members of the
> community
> can post feedback for us and discuss the Java EE 7 specification work (with
> us
> and with each other).
>
> thanks,
>
> -Linda
>
>
>
> On 6/8/2011 3:47 AM, Antonio Goncalves wrote:
>
>> Yes, my bad, I was looking at the Proposed Final Draft 10 from June 2009
>>
>> Yes I like the idea of defining a set of stages in EE and the possibility
>> to add extra as needed
>>
>> Antonio
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:55, Pete Muir <pmuir_at_bleepbleep.org.uk <mailto:
>> pmuir_at_bleepbleep.org.uk>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Antonio
>>
>> The CDI spec doesn't have an appendix. You must be looking at an old
>> version.
>>
>> I sent this to Werner in response to his mail. Unfortunately due to the
>> fact I can't post to the EE EG, I doubt you
>> saw it.
>>
>> > At some point CDI had "deployment types" which were essentially an
>> open set of "project stages". These were
>> simply an annotation, meta-annotated with @DeploymentType.
>> >
>> > CDI 1.0 replaced these with alternatives, which do essentially the
>> same thing as far as CDI is concerned (as you
>> can apply them on stereotypes).
>> >
>> > I think the original approach is quite reasonable, and all would be
>> required would be for EE to define a set of
>> these, and others can add as needed.
>>
>> Pete
>>
>> On 8 Jun 2011, at 09:16, Antonio Goncalves wrote:
>>
>> > JSF has the following staging :
>> > • Development
>> > • UnitTest
>> > • SystemTest
>> > • Production
>> > Werner I was having a look at the CDI spec and, indeed, in the
>> appendix B.8 it talks about a
>> javax.enterprise.inject.deployment package :
>> >
>> > "B.8. javax.enterprise.inject.deployment
>> > The package javax.enterprise.inject.deployment contains annotations
>> relating to deployment types and specialization.
>> > • Annotations: @DeploymentType, @Specializes
>> > • Deployment types: @Production, @Standard"
>> >
>> > Strange enough, I can't find the API for this package.
>> >
>> > Antonio
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 16:12, Werner Keil <werner.keil_at_gmail.com<mailto:
>> werner.keil_at_gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > I fully agree, although even in the scope of JSF it'll require a bit
>> more than that enum.
>> >
>> > CDI 1.0 had a DeploymentContext which AFAIK was pulled out of the
>> Final release, but what I read from earlier
>> specs, this had potential to help define "stages" in a more flexible
>> way.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Antonio Goncalves <
>> antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com
>> <mailto:antonio.goncalves_at_gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > Java EE defines a set of roles, why not defining a set of staging so
>> each spec could take that into account ? I
>> think introducing staging in JSF 2.0 was a very good idea, why not
>> apply it to the entire platform ?
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Antonio Goncalves
>> Software architect and Java Champion
>>
>> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org> | Twitter <
>> http://twitter.com/agoncal> | Blog
>> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/AntonioGoncalves> | LinkedIn <
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris JUG
>> <http://www.parisjug.org>
>>
>
--
Werner Keil | UOMo Lead | Eclipse Foundation | Agile Coach, Principal
Consultant | *emergn* limited
590 Madison Avenue. New York. NY 10022 | 68 Lombard Street. London EC3V 9LJ
UK
US Toll Free: +1-877.964.1981 | Worldwide Toll Free: +800.225.53482
Twitter @wernerkeil | Skype: werner.keil | www.emergn.com | Reshaping IT