Pete Muir wrote on 07/22/11 01:46 AM:
>
> On 21 Jul 2011, at 23:05, Bill Shannon wrote:
>
>> Pete Muir wrote on 07/21/2011 04:03 AM:
>> ...
>>>>> I think the CDI EG would be happy to explore this, were it to be sanctioned by the EE EG and not just deemed a waste of time from the start.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think anyone has suggested that it's a waste of time from the start.
>>>>
>>>> But if all you end up with is a different syntax for doing exactly the same
>>>> things we can already do, it probably will be a waste of time. It's important
>>>> to understand what the larger goal is.
>>>>
>>>> For example, if the larger goal is to consolidate all the deployment descriptors
>>>> into a single deployment descriptor that supports vendor-specific extensions,
>>>> let's find out if that's what developers want.
>>>
>>> Ok, well the offer stands - let us know if you want to explore a XML syntax for CDI 1.1 :-)
>>
>> I think it's pretty much up to you and your expert group at this point.
>>
>> It seems unlikely to me that we could apply this outside of CDI for EE 7,
>> but I can see some advantages to gaining experience with this new approach
>> in CDI for EE 7. But maybe you think you've got enough experience with
>> this in Seam Config? And maybe you've already got plenty of other things
>> to do for CDI 1.1?
>>
>> Let us know what *you* think should be done!
>
> It's something that will add real value to CDI, and complete one of the large gaps. So, if there is a good chance of it being supported at the platform level I will advocate to the CDI EG that we add this to the schedule, and I will find some time to spend on it.
Just to be clear, we're still at the "looks interesting, let's talk some more"
stage. It *does* look like a good solution for the particular problem CDI
faces. Whether it's a good solution for all our deployment descriptor needs is
still not clear to me. If it turns out to be just "different" rather than
"better", it will be a hard sell. But at this point it looks interesting
enough to pursue further.