..oO(thank you SYMPA ... forwarding my message with correct sender address)
Date: 13 December 2012 14:44
Subject: Re: [jsr342-experts] Proposal for global CDI enablement
To: jsr342-experts_at_javaee-spec.java.net
Cc: pmuir_at_bleepbleep.org.uk
Hi Pete,
On 10 December 2012 14:52, Pete Muir <pmuir_at_bleepbleep.org.uk> wrote:
> OPEN ISSUE: Should auto-discover be false by default for beans.xml with version 1.1. This would mean that adding a beans.xml would have no impact on discovery for 1.1 apps, however it is a significant change from 1.0.
No, please keep this in line with 1.0 behavior. If I think of the many
lightweight migrated applications that rely on backward compatibility:
Please don't change it!
> OPEN ISSUE: Should only scopes for which a CDI context exists be considered component defining? This could introduce some thorny edge cases, but would address the JSR-330 compatibility issue better.
Can you elaborate on some of these? At the moment would be fine with that.
> OPEN ISSUE: Should we extend auto-discover in beans.xml to allow complete disablement of scanning e.g. auto-discover="all|bean-defining-annotations-only|none" ?
I tend to answer: yes on this one. But I'm not sure if this will be of
a big advantage.
> OPEN ISSUE: How should the ProcessAnnotatedType event instruct the container to discover a class as a bean? Perhaps something like event.discover(clazz)?
Can't comment. Doesn't sound too bad for me.
> OPEN ISSUE: Should we integrate this with the package level scanning control we have proposed for CDI 1.1?
Yes, please!
- M