[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: CDI positioning

From: Antonio Goncalves <>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:40:59 +0200

Hi all,

At my customers I've never seen a EE 6 application running without CDI, it
really doesn't make sense. As you said, people where reluctant when
annotations first came, and now they use it everywhere : same thing should
happen with CDI. CDI should be enabled by default in EE 7 (even without a
beans.xml file) and we should encourage the other specs to use it. I would
even go further : javax.faces.bean.ManagedBean in JSF 2.2 should be
deprecated as developers get confused with @Named. With CDI enabled by
default, we could use more implicit producers :

@Inject PersistenceContext em;
@Inject ConnectionFactory conn;
@Inject Queue q;
@Inject Principal loggedInUser

and who knows, one day, @Inject Logger log;

As for JAX-RS not willing to embrace CDI, I will try to sell (again) my
idea of a minimal profile. I've talked about it many times in this mailing
list, but what about creating a minimal profil with Servlet/JSP/EL and CDI
? That will maybe encourage web containers such as Tomcat, Jetty to
implement this profile. This would also encourage people to use CDI. JAX-RS
could then run on any "Minimal Profile" container out of the box with CDI

To summarize, CDI should become central to EE 7 and spread to the other
specs (even dormant one such as JAX-WS)

My 2 cents

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Bill Shannon <>wrote:

> From many of our recent discussions, it seems clear that CDI is
> becoming more central to the Java EE programming model. For example:
> - The expanded use of @Stereotype in my previous message.
> - The use of CDI interceptors to provide container managed
> transaction support beyond EJB.
> - The potential future use of CDI interceptors to provide container
> managed security support beyond EJB.
> - The use of CDI interceptors to support Bean Validation method
> level validation.
> - The discussion of "implicit producers" to allow use of @Inject
> instead of @Resource to inject Java EE resources.
> - The discussion around alignment of CDI managed beans and the
> separate @ManagedBean spec.
> - The introduction of a transaction scope and its use in the JMS
> spec to simplify the programming model.
> - The change being considered by the CDI expert group to enable
> CDI by default, making it more attractive to use it for all
> the items above.
> At the same time we're finding that some specs, e.g., JAX-RS, are
> hesitant to introduce a hard, or even soft, dependency on CDI,
> instead insisting that all their new features must work in an
> environment where there is no CDI.
> In many ways this parallels what we saw with annotations. In
> the beginning we found many people who didn't want to use annotations
> and wanted us to make sure everything worked without use of
> annotations. Now we're seeing many things that *only* work with
> annotations, and annotations are well accepted by Java EE developers.
> I suppose there's a natural lifecycle to acceptance of new
> technologies, and I wonder where we are in that lifecycle with CDI?
> Has CDI become a mature and accepted technology that we should use
> widely?
> I'd like to get a sense from this group as to what direction we
> should provide to all the Java EE specs in regards to their use
> of CDI. Here's a few obvious options:
> A. Technologies that see a significant standalone (non-Java EE) use
> should be fully functional without CDI. If necessary, any
> required features that are similar to CDI features should be
> defined and implemented in a way that doesn't depend on CDI.
> B. Technologies should provide all major features in a way that
> works without CDI. Some features may also be provided in a
> different way that works well with CDI. Some less essential
> features may only work with CDI. The implementation should
> only have a soft dependency on CDI at most.
> C. Technologies should provide features that work well with CDI
> without duplicating any functionality in CDI. Use CDI wherever
> it fits. The implementation may have a hard dependency on CDI
> and may require CDI even when used in a standalone environment.
> I'm sure you can think of other options as well.
> What advice do you think we should give to other Java EE specs?

Antonio Goncalves
Software architect and Java Champion
Web site <> |
LinkedIn <> | Paris
JUG<> |
Devoxx France <>