> Am 19.07.2016 um 17:45 schrieb Anatole Tresch <[email protected]>: > > Not providing any kind of mechanism, but > the API also makes us less vunerable to discussions about how configuration > should be organized, which ultimately is the main issue, why standardizing > it is so difficult. So from a political perspective it may be an advantage > NOT to define the mechanisms behind, but only provide the main mechanism to > access it, the API.
I see the point, but I fear it falls a bit too short. Think about JSR-330 (atinject). It only provides the ‚consumer‘ API. Is it usable? No, it _always_ needs another spec to be usable. Be it CDI, Guice or Spring. It is *absolutely* impossible to provide a portable solution based on atinject alone. It is just the least common denominator of a few frameworks. Do we like to do that? If so, how does a user build it’s applications in a *portable* way? Without any SPI or very simple default ways to configure your app this is imo impossible. That’s the reason why I really would love to see the SPI as part of such a spec. LieGrue, strub
