To be very clear: imo the CDI-4.0 spec should never have been released that way. Sorry for the hard words.
The whole part of the 'cdi-lite' is actually not a subpart of CDI but extends CDI with a (partly vendor specific) build time api. Which is also not really technically necessary imo. So far Helidon, Meecrowave, micronaut, etc managed to run on Graalvm quite fine without this api. Here is my PR which got rejected. It proves that there is no technical requirement to have all this crap in the same spec api jar! https://github.com/jakartaee/cdi/pull/582 <https://github.com/jakartaee/cdi/pull/582> My personal approach would be the following: 1.) Enhance our geronimo-jcdi spec api to include the few new changes they made to BeanManager etc. 2.) Take the official cdi api (with the lite parts) and 'extract' those lite parts into an own jcdi-lite-api.jar 3.) provide a maven plugin and standard CDI Extension to handle the lite parts. This is perfectly doable! 4.) It is even possible to support the whole non-reflection features by using a dedicated ScannerService etc. That way almost no code change to OWB would be needed. Almost all of the changes could be done via an Extension. That way OWB would still remain quite small and not get as bloated as other implementations. It's actually a shame that those changes got pushed so hard despite a lot of EG members heavily objecting with good arguments! LieGrue, strub > Am 13.10.2022 um 08:25 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > > Hi David, > > It is not about perf but about the cdi "lite" part (build time spec). > We explained why it was unecessary technically on cdi bugtracker and > requested that at least it was excluded from cdi spec jar and considered > another subspec since it is fully unrelated to CDI but it got rejected by a > few pushing their vendor API to the spec. > > The idea is to not expose an API we'll not support I guess and bundle > properly the API. > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> > > > Le jeu. 13 oct. 2022 à 02:47, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > >>> On Jun 2, 2022, at 12:03 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID> >> wrote: >>> >>> I had an idea about how we could implement CDI-4.0 without all the >> overhead it brings. >> >> Can you elaborate on the overhead you're concerned about? (not a challenge >> -- I'm not very familiar with the details yet) >> >> >> -David >> >>
