Hi,
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Edward Burns <edward.burns_at_oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:55:43 -0500 (EST), Stuart Douglas <sdouglas_at_redhat.com> said:
> GW> Thus I think these things must
> GW> remain a CDI impl responsibility as they are able to write container
> GW> portable code that will handle these concerns. The inverse is not true if
> GW> we make them container concerns.
>
> Excellent points. I will use these to push back on
> CDI-492-FobStuffToServlet.
IMHO, unless I'm missing something here, but the assertion made above
is not correct. It's not only CDI that can write container portable
code.
As mentioned in the other reply, the extension and producer mechanisms
needed are portable, public and non CDI-implementation specific. Every
Servlet container can use these mechanisms to produce the required
artefacts, without needing any CDI implementation specific code.
So pushing back on this on the basis of (or just including the fact
that) Servlet containers needing to resort to non-portable code, which
I think is Greg's main concern, would not be entirely valid.
Arjan Tijms
I will provisionally close this issue for
> now at least.
>
> Ed
>
> --
> | edward.burns_at_oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017