Le mer. 23 nov. 2022 à 11:18, Mark Struberg a écrit :
>
> Not from a spec standpoint, it is the opposite, full is optional but is
> based on lite (once again not saying it is good).
>
>
>
> From the wording of the spec. But this is totally inside out.
>
You mean at
https://jakarta.ee/specificati
> Not from a spec standpoint, it is the opposite, full is optional but is based
> on lite (once again not saying it is good).
>
From the wording of the spec. But this is totally inside out.
Technically you can have 'CDI classic' without any of the 'CDI-light' (which
adds tons of stuff to 'cla
Le mer. 23 nov. 2022 à 10:58, Mark Struberg via dev
a écrit :
> As written over at the OWB list:
>
> I intend only to update OWB to the jakarta package names plus implement
> the core changes.
>
> All that 'cdi-light' stuff (which is imo rather broken) is technically
> optional and can also get i
As written over at the OWB list:
I intend only to update OWB to the jakarta package names plus implement the
core changes.
All that 'cdi-light' stuff (which is imo rather broken) is technically optional
and can also get implemented as a plugin.
I just don't want to have all those tons of new cl
Hi,
Well, I guess the OSGi stuff is still a good justification to roll our own
even if they didnt catch up yet jakarta - think they will anyway and owb
runs in any case.
On the flavor we can do a lite-free module but since standard version
assumes lite extensions are ran as part of the runtime -
Hi!
How do we want to approach the CDI-4.0 api?
I don't want to just use the official API as it is bloated with the 'CDI light'
stuff.
So there is good reason to just keep our own version - even if it is just a
shaded/spit of the official one.
What about the others? Do we still want to roll our
