for me a separate module sounds logical but nothing blocks to make it part of the core since each extension can be activated using configsourceproviders of DS
- Romain 2012/7/9 Pete Muir <[email protected]> > As Romain said, I would expect you to need to turn this on somehow (e.g. > enable extension). If we think a separate module is the easiest way to turn > it on, then I think that makes sense. > > On 9 Jul 2012, at 10:20, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > 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 > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > >
