The point is that most of the new API is really for that Quarkus use case. And this can be done in a portable extension as well if one wants. So I see zero reason to implement it. And also zero reason to have those api classes in my classpath. The rest would be mostly for tomee to be able to go forward.
LieGrue, strub > Am 03.06.2022 um 08:31 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > > Le jeu. 2 juin 2022 à 22:44, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> a > écrit : > >> would imo introduce too many layers which might be hard to maintain in the >> long run. With the current plugin structure you can already run without >> even class scanning and dynamic bytecode tinkering if one wants. >> So don't think it's worth to add another layer of abstraction in the >> middle. >> > > Thing is that currently you dont get most benefit, just tech extension > points to make the run work: > > - you leverage jakarta/javax and their mess+breaking > changes+inconsistencies from v4 > - you get more than needed in api > - you have constraints on beans you dont need > > Your proposal is just the same but half baked since we are compatible or we > are not, this is why I think we should propose something really stable or > maybe just stick to impl the spec (modularly or not is a detail but tck > require both parts of the spec so passing only one is pointless for users > IMHO). > > > >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >>> Am 02.06.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com >>> : >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Some times ago I proposed to extract a cdi-like-light owb bundle which >>> would be a minimal IoC without the cdi 2.0 boilerplate and probably >> unsafe >>> free to be "all env friendly". This is very close to owb-se except a few >>> spi, defaults and jakarta dep. >>> >>> Making it cdi-se/ee as an impl sounds more valuable today for the project >>> IMHO - because we tend to go lightweight cause of the cloud move and >>> projects stacking too much are not that adopted - and is still compatible >>> with your idea so can be worth starting owb 3 from these basis with a >> light >>> owb IoC api/spi (TBD if we inherit from jakarta or not) and then back >>> owb-impl by this "owb-core" and finally impl your idea on this new api? >>> >>> >>> >>> Le jeu. 2 juin 2022 à 21:04, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid >> <mailto:strub...@yahoo.de.invalid>> a >>> écrit : >>> >>>> hi folks! >>>> >>>> I had an idea about how we could implement CDI-4.0 without all the >>>> overhead it brings. >>>> The goal is to keep OWB as light as possible but as compatible as >> possible. >>>> >>>> The idea is to use the standard eclipse jcdi package and split it in 2 >>>> parts via maven-shade plugin or simple unzip/zip repackaging. >>>> This is necessary as JBoss refused to do it properly inside the spec >>>> itself but forced the full 'light' (which is actually adding 30% more >> code >>>> to the CDI api) on all users, regardless whether they need it or not. >>>> >>>> Here you can find more information about the background of the split and >>>> how it's done: >>>> https://github.com/jakartaee/cdi/pull/582 < >>>> https://github.com/jakartaee/cdi/pull/582 < >> https://github.com/jakartaee/cdi/pull/582>> >>>> >>>> I'd like to do the same, but for now just implement the clasic Jakarta >> EE >>>> part without the 'CDI lite' overhead. >>>> If we later find some time we can still implement CDI-lite as either an >>>> OWB plugin or even as a standard portable extension. This can be done >> here >>>> or as part of TomEE for example. >>>> >>>> I think we might be rather quick to get things going that way. >>>> >>>> Wdyt about that idea? >>>> >>>> LieGrue, >>>> strub >> >>
