On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:16 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 25 sept. 2016 21:10, "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> a écrit : > > > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:07 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Le 25 sept. 2016 20:57, "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> a > écrit > : > > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:30 PM Mark Struberg > <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Basically, one sticking target I see continually is > > > BeanManagerProvider. > > > > > We already use CDI.current() internally if it is available (via > > > > > reflection). > > > > > So no need to upgrade it just for this feature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reflection is inherently slower than direct method calls. Hence > slows > > > down > > > > deltaspike's execution. I'll also note that: > > > > > > > > - It implies that we need a wrapper. It would be great if we didn't. > > > > - Its second in the list, first is JNDI. JNDI will work generally > > > > everywhere but SE apps. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/deltaspike/blob/master/deltaspike/core/api/src/main/java/org/apache/deltaspike/core/api/provider/BeanManagerProvider.java#L224 > > > > > > > > > > Quick note here is CDI.current() is slower by design reflection or not > but > > > speed should be ok if code doesnt abuse of it on all lines of a request > > > scoped instance so not sure it is that much a criteria. > > > > > > > Slower than compared to... ? > > There's no spec mandate that CDI.current() act slower. I would expect > its > > under the hood accessing the same threadlocal instance for the > deployment. > > > > To BeanManagerProvider cause one caches the instance the other needs to > look it up contextually...there shouldnt be any thread local involved > there. > Ohhh you mean because its CDI.current().getBeanManager(), the CDI.current() part is the slow part? That's where I'm saying under the hood a thread local should be bound with the CDI instance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but its because we didn't make a DS version > > > > > > > > > > > that was CDI 1.1+ compatible. > > > > > Nope, ALL our versions since day one are CDI-1.1+ compatible. > > > > > And we also already make use of a few important features. But only > via > > > > > reflection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll clarify this - we didn't release a DS version that was only CDI > 1.1+ > > > > compatible. We've always carried around the "baggage" of CDI 1.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features like manual injection of fields, which > > > > > > > > > > > could be replaced by Unmaanaged. > > > > > > > > > > I don't like Unmanaged as it can easily create mem leaks. It is imo > as > > > > > unnecessary as @New used to be... > > > > > I already expressed my concerns in the EG, but it's too late to get > rid > > > of > > > > > it now. > > > > > Also note that Unmanaged always creates a newInstance while the > > > DeltaSpike > > > > > utility method injects into a given EXISTING instance. That is a > *huge* > > > > > difference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > CDI's pretty funny, its the only spec I can think of that inherently > > > > creates memory leaks. Unmanaged shouldn't create memory leaks. > Maybe > > > the > > > > underlying problem is that the impls treat it as a dependent scoped > bean? > > > > > > > > Anyways, most cases I've seen for BeanProvider.injectFields uses this > > > > format: > > > > > > > > SomeBean someBean = BeanProvider.injectFields(new > > > SomeBean(someOtherDep)); > > > > > > > > E.g. the object isn't really valid until the injection points are > > > satisfied. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LieGrue, > > > > > strub > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, 25 September 2016, 17:37, John D. Ament < > > > > > johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:34 AM Thomas Andraschko < > > > > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> not sure if a cdi2-module is enough > > > > > >> we should also get rid of some of our api's which are in CDI > 2.0 > > > now > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. I agree. Basically, one sticking target I see continually > is > > > > > > BeanManagerProvider. Maybe we keep it around as a utility and > for > > > > > > backwards compatibility, but its now available as CDI.current(), > to > > > do > > > > > > programmatic look up. > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition, there are features like manual injection of fields, > > > which > > > > > > could be replaced by Unmaanaged. I know as a user of CDI 1.2, > seeing > > > > > both > > > > > > available makes me confused, but its because we didn't make a DS > > > version > > > > > > that was CDI 1.1+ compatible. > > > > > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 2016-09-25 17:28 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > 2016-09-25 17:22 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament > > > > > > <johndam...@apache.org>: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Hey guys, > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Since its inception, DeltaSpike has targeted Java EE 6 and > > > lower, > > > > > > and > > > > > >> as > > > > > >> > a > > > > > >> > > result the CDI 1.0 runtime. We have maintained a pretty > > > > > > backwards > > > > > >> > > compatible code base for 5 years now. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > CDI 2.0 is going to wrap up in January, if current > schedules > > > > > > align > > > > > >> > > correctly. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > I'd like to propose that we start a branch for 2.0 > > > > > > development now. It > > > > > >> > > would be a good place to put fixes for > > > > > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-1206 and > > > other > > > > > >> > > enhancements that we can make to our core runtime to better > > > > > > integrate > > > > > >> > with > > > > > >> > > CDI 1.1/1.2/2.0 features that have been added. In addition > to > > > > > > the > > > > > >> Java 8 > > > > > >> > > upgrade taking place there. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > We can keep master on 1.x for patches that may be needed > for > > > the > > > > > > 1.x > > > > > >> > line, > > > > > >> > > and rebase them with a 2.0 branch to make sure both > branches > > > get > > > > > > the > > > > > >> > fixes. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > WDYT? > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > What feature do we target and need CDI 2.0 for it? If none I > > > think we > > > > > >> don't > > > > > >> > need the branch yet, if enough we should also think to have a > > > cdi2 > > > > > > module > > > > > >> > to avoid to fork code while 1.0/1.1 is maintained > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > John > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
