As Romain said, I would expect you to need to turn this on somehow (e.g. enable extension). If we think a separate module is the easiest way to turn it on, then I think that makes sense.
On 9 Jul 2012, at 10:20, Mark Struberg wrote: > The main reason why I would prefer a separate module is that this is really > only used by a few people. And those really get less and less. Most people do > not use it and would just be hit by a huge scanning effort. Maybe we could > make this better performing, but it certainly adds quite some complexity. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com> >> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Cc: >> Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2012 12:33 PM >> Subject: Re: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config) >> >> +1 to adding it from me. >> >> XML config is probably the feature (as opposed to enhancement to existing >> feature or "bug" fix) most requested for CDI. I think we need >> something like this in DeltaSpike, in order to fulfil our goals. >> >> A non compiled format such as XML (or YAML or ...) makes a lot of sense for >> *configuration* of an application (as opposed to wiring [1]), >> >> As Jason said, this is the only known XML config (dialect and impl) for CDI, >> so >> I think it's quite uncontroversial. The "API" of the config is >> actually the XML dialect, which has received a lot of attention in the past >> (designed for CDI 1.0, so fully reviewed by the EG). >> >> BTW I'm not understanding why putting it in a separate module makes a >> difference? It's dependencies are basically zero (CDI API and SAX, which is >> in the JDK), and I think if it goes in it's own package, it shouldn't >> cause contention on class files. Personally, I think this is a core concern, >> and >> as it doesn't introduce dependencies can go easily into the core. >> >> On 6 Jul 2012, at 21:14, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >> >>> +0 since i'm not sure XML is really CDI spirit...and it needs to be >>> consistent with already existing config (global alternatives etc) which can >>> be a bit complicated >>> >>> - Romain >>> >>> >>> 2012/7/6 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> >>> >>>> i'm not sure if we should start with it for v0.4, however, if it >> gets an >>>> own (optional) module: +0 >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> gerhard >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2012/7/6 Jason Porter <lightguard...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>>> It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we haven't done >> it yet. >>>> Thoughts >>>>> on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from what we have >> in >>>> Seam >>>>> 3 with package name changes. It's currently the only >> implementation in >>>>> existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that was to be >> part >>>> of >>>>> spec but was later pulled. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Jason Porter >>>>> http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com >>>>> http://twitter.com/lightguardjp >>>>> >>>>> Software Engineer >>>>> Open Source Advocate >>>>> Author of Seam Catch - Next Generation Java Exception Handling >>>>> >>>>> PGP key id: 926CCFF5 >>>>> PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu >>>>> >>>> >>
