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 <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> >> >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >
