"CDI First"

[Steve Millidge]

I thought the whole guiding principle of the programming model of MicroProfile was "CDI first". 

I do recall many discussions about that in the early days and it is still in the architecture principles https://wiki.eclipse.org/MicroProfile/ArchGuidelines#CDI_Dependency.

Today some opinions have been expressed off list that CDI is just an api dependency and being compatible with CDI is not necessary to be MicroProfile compatible. Are we abandoning the principle of CDI first? If so it would be good to have an open discussion about it even if to have a level playing field and a clear statement of direction.

Steve

[Mark Little]

Steve, did you miss the thread Ken kicked off in this related topic a few hours ago? Let's have one discussion there please.

Sent from my iPhone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Eclipse MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/a5c1f72d-9a70-4eb6-aabf-0b59bd46f166%40googlegroups.com.

[Alasdair Nottingham]

I thought that too. I don’t think we should go away from CDI first. 

Alasdair Nottingham

On Feb 10, 2020, at 1:43 PM, Steve Millidge <l33t...@gmail.com> wrote:



--

[Steve Millidge]

No I posted on Ken's thread his is about compatibility requirements not fundamental architectural principles of MicroProfile.

[Ken Finnigan]

"CDI First" as an architectural principle was always about ensuring we were thinking about the API in a way that made it easily consumable with the CDI programming model. Whether an MP spec API provided that ability, or it was for an implementation to provide that ability. Especially as the "CDI First" approach didn't require a dependency on CDI to be "CDI First".

It was not aligned to requiring a CDI dependency, or even how much of that dependency might be required.

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 2:38 PM Steve Millidge <l33t...@gmail.com> wrote:

No I posted on Ken's thread his is about compatibility requirements not fundamental architectural principles of MicroProfile.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Eclipse MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/2e72f141-30d9-44a5-b956-b455e53ad7b8%40googlegroups.com.

[Steve Millidge]

MicroProfile from day one was based on CDI that was a fundamental architectural principle.

I understand, now you don't want it to be a principle, so let's discuss in the community. Gaslighting me that it never was is a bit extreme. Just scroll to the first comment in the minutes of the archtecture group.

Steve

[Ken Finnigan]

I've never said we don't want CDI to be core to MP.

I'm not gaslighting anyone. If you look at the minutes from the next meeting, you will see that the "CDI First" approach needs to be layered to support specifications that want to just depend on Inject so they can be used by Spring or anyone else. Hence why the Architecture guidelines were written that way.

Ken

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Eclipse MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/7555d5ed-bc16-4d5d-afcf-f0a53121e794%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Little]

OK but you're conflating two different things here then:

(i) the discussion around what it means to be MP compliant.

(ii) CDI First.

I've not seen anyone from Red Hat suggest that CDI First is not still important, so (ii) is a null-op for us.

And Ken's other email to debate (i) shows that there's something to discuss and resolve.

And in no way has anyone from Red Hat made the association between (i) and (ii).

Mark.

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 2:38 PM Steve Millidge <l33t...@gmail.com> wrote:

No I posted on Ken's thread his is about compatibility requirements not fundamental architectural principles of MicroProfile.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Eclipse MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/2e72f141-30d9-44a5-b956-b455e53ad7b8%40googlegroups.com.

[Steve Millidge]

Cool then it is resolved MP is still CDI first and based on CDI. I apologise for my confusion.

[Mark Little]

Surprised you had doubts about the company which lead the CDI specification :)

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 16:30 Steve Millidge <l33t...@gmail.com> wrote:

Cool then it is resolved MP is still CDI first and based on CDI. I apologise for my confusion.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Eclipse MicroProfile" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to microprofile...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/microprofile/dc0b1492-f9cc-48dc-9e6d-f8bfbb718ca5%40googlegroups.com.