deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
Date Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:20:28 GMT
The main reason why I would prefer a separate module is that this is really only used by a
few people. And those really get less and less. Most people do not use it and would just be
hit by a huge scanning effort. Maybe we could make this better performing, but it certainly
adds quite some complexity.

LieGrue,
strub



----- Original Message -----
> From: Pete Muir <pmuir@redhat.com>
> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2012 12:33 PM
> Subject: Re: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
> 
> +1 to adding it from me.
> 
> XML config is probably the feature (as opposed to enhancement to existing 
> feature or "bug" fix) most requested for CDI. I think we need 
> something like this in DeltaSpike, in order to fulfil our goals.
> 
> A non compiled format such as XML (or YAML or ...) makes a lot of sense for 
> *configuration* of an application (as opposed to wiring [1]),
> 
> As Jason said, this is the only known XML config (dialect and impl) for CDI, so 
> I think it's quite uncontroversial. The "API" of the config is 
> actually the XML dialect, which has received a lot of attention in the past 
> (designed for CDI 1.0, so fully reviewed by the EG).
> 
> BTW I'm not understanding why putting it in a separate module makes a 
> difference? It's dependencies are basically zero (CDI API and SAX, which is 
> in the JDK), and I think if it goes in it's own package, it shouldn't 
> cause contention on class files. Personally, I think this is a core concern, and 
> as it doesn't introduce dependencies can go easily into the core.
> 
> On 6 Jul 2012, at 21:14, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> 
>>  +0 since i'm not sure XML is really CDI spirit...and it needs to be
>>  consistent with already existing config (global alternatives etc) which can
>>  be a bit complicated
>> 
>>  - Romain
>> 
>> 
>>  2012/7/6 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
>> 
>>>  i'm not sure if we should start with it for v0.4, however, if it 
> gets an
>>>  own (optional) module: +0
>>> 
>>>  regards,
>>>  gerhard
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  2012/7/6 Jason Porter <lightguard.jp@gmail.com>
>>> 
>>>>  It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we haven't done 
> it yet.
>>>  Thoughts
>>>>  on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from what we have 
> in
>>>  Seam
>>>>  3 with package name changes. It's currently the only 
> implementation in
>>>>  existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that was to be 
> part
>>>  of
>>>>  spec but was later pulled.
>>>> 
>>>>  --
>>>>  Jason Porter
>>>>  http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com
>>>>  http://twitter.com/lightguardjp
>>>> 
>>>>  Software Engineer
>>>>  Open Source Advocate
>>>>  Author of Seam Catch - Next Generation Java Exception Handling
>>>> 
>>>>  PGP key id: 926CCFF5
>>>>  PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu
>>>> 
>>> 
> 

Mime
View raw message