[javaee-spec users] Re: [jsr342-experts] Re: Configuration

From: Pete Muir <>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:20:20 +0100


Pete Muir
On 22 Jul 2011, at 20:10, Bill Shannon <> wrote:
> 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.