Le 25 sept. 2016 20:57, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> a écrit : > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:30 PM Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Basically, one sticking target I see continually is BeanManagerProvider. > > We already use CDI.current() internally if it is available (via > > reflection). > > So no need to upgrade it just for this feature. > > > > Reflection is inherently slower than direct method calls. Hence slows down > deltaspike's execution. I'll also note that: > > - It implies that we need a wrapper. It would be great if we didn't. > - Its second in the list, first is JNDI. JNDI will work generally > everywhere but SE apps. > https://github.com/apache/deltaspike/blob/master/deltaspike/core/api/src/main/java/org/apache/deltaspike/core/api/provider/BeanManagerProvider.java#L224 >
Quick note here is CDI.current() is slower by design reflection or not but speed should be ok if code doesnt abuse of it on all lines of a request scoped instance so not sure it is that much a criteria. > > > > > > > > but its because we didn't make a DS version > > > > > that was CDI 1.1+ compatible. > > Nope, ALL our versions since day one are CDI-1.1+ compatible. > > And we also already make use of a few important features. But only via > > reflection. > > > > I'll clarify this - we didn't release a DS version that was only CDI 1.1+ > compatible. We've always carried around the "baggage" of CDI 1.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > features like manual injection of fields, which > > > > > could be replaced by Unmaanaged. > > > > I don't like Unmanaged as it can easily create mem leaks. It is imo as > > unnecessary as @New used to be... > > I already expressed my concerns in the EG, but it's too late to get rid of > > it now. > > Also note that Unmanaged always creates a newInstance while the DeltaSpike > > utility method injects into a given EXISTING instance. That is a *huge* > > difference. > > > > CDI's pretty funny, its the only spec I can think of that inherently > creates memory leaks. Unmanaged shouldn't create memory leaks. Maybe the > underlying problem is that the impls treat it as a dependent scoped bean? > > Anyways, most cases I've seen for BeanProvider.injectFields uses this > format: > > SomeBean someBean = BeanProvider.injectFields(new SomeBean(someOtherDep)); > > E.g. the object isn't really valid until the injection points are satisfied. > > > > > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 25 September 2016, 17:37, John D. Ament < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:34 AM Thomas Andraschko < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> not sure if a cdi2-module is enough > > >> we should also get rid of some of our api's which are in CDI 2.0 now > > >> > > > > > > Yes. I agree. Basically, one sticking target I see continually is > > > BeanManagerProvider. Maybe we keep it around as a utility and for > > > backwards compatibility, but its now available as CDI.current(), to do > > > programmatic look up. > > > > > > In addition, there are features like manual injection of fields, which > > > could be replaced by Unmaanaged. I know as a user of CDI 1.2, seeing > > both > > > available makes me confused, but its because we didn't make a DS version > > > that was CDI 1.1+ compatible. > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> 2016-09-25 17:28 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau > > > <[email protected]>: > > >> > > >> > 2016-09-25 17:22 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament > > > <[email protected]>: > > >> > > > >> > > Hey guys, > > >> > > > > >> > > Since its inception, DeltaSpike has targeted Java EE 6 and lower, > > > and > > >> as > > >> > a > > >> > > result the CDI 1.0 runtime. We have maintained a pretty > > > backwards > > >> > > compatible code base for 5 years now. > > >> > > > > >> > > CDI 2.0 is going to wrap up in January, if current schedules > > > align > > >> > > correctly. > > >> > > > > >> > > I'd like to propose that we start a branch for 2.0 > > > development now. It > > >> > > would be a good place to put fixes for > > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-1206 and other > > >> > > enhancements that we can make to our core runtime to better > > > integrate > > >> > with > > >> > > CDI 1.1/1.2/2.0 features that have been added. In addition to > > > the > > >> Java 8 > > >> > > upgrade taking place there. > > >> > > > > >> > > We can keep master on 1.x for patches that may be needed for the > > > 1.x > > >> > line, > > >> > > and rebase them with a 2.0 branch to make sure both branches get > > > the > > >> > fixes. > > >> > > > > >> > > WDYT? > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > What feature do we target and need CDI 2.0 for it? If none I think we > > >> don't > > >> > need the branch yet, if enough we should also think to have a cdi2 > > > module > > >> > to avoid to fork code while 1.0/1.1 is maintained > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > John > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >
