Hi David, It is not about perf but about the cdi "lite" part (build time spec). We explained why it was unecessary technically on cdi bugtracker and requested that at least it was excluded from cdi spec jar and considered another subspec since it is fully unrelated to CDI but it got rejected by a few pushing their vendor API to the spec.
The idea is to not expose an API we'll not support I guess and bundle properly the API. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> Le jeu. 13 oct. 2022 à 02:47, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > On Jun 2, 2022, at 12:03 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID> > wrote: > > > > I had an idea about how we could implement CDI-4.0 without all the > overhead it brings. > > Can you elaborate on the overhead you're concerned about? (not a challenge > -- I'm not very familiar with the details yet) > > > -David > >
