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

From: Werner Keil <>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 07:48:58 -0700

Deepak, Pete, all,

Thanks a lot for that discussion, especially Antonio, you add a lot of good
points even if not everyone may always be happy to hear or solve them;-)

I had many discussions with other speakers at JavaOne this week, and not
just one said, "CDI made JavaEE's Day" (to quote Clint Eastwood from one of
his more popular speeches;-)

If the main focus of EE7 is "Simplification" or "Consolidation" while "True
PaaS" among other items were deferred, then these redundant terms used in a
similar way must not be introduced!

Spec Leads of e.g. the Identity or other JSRs carefully avoided such
mistakes and we ended up having either ID or Id in front of many otherwise
redundant types that exist in other JSRs like JPA with similar but not
entirely identical purpose.
(Identity Attributes need e.g. query and sort of Persistence, but that can
be far more diverse than traditional RMDBS, and sources require "Mix &
Match", "Overlay" or other techniques common at best in JCA or JCR)

So if a JSR cannot avoid duplicating CDI features instead of just using it,
then at least it mustn't pollute the ecosystem with redundant annotations
or keywords.
Pete knows, some of that had to be done between 330 and CDI and if it
hadn't been resolved, both JSR-330 and CDI would define @Inject without
caring about one another.

Let's not go there now.

Am 04.10.2012 23:36 schrieb "Deepak Anupalli" <>: