> Imagine you don't use EJB or anything else from JAvaEE, > just JSF (and > a servlet container). A dependency to 299-impl is a little > heavy, right ?
I didn't say webbeans-impl, but only the jsr299-api package! This only contains annotations and a few interfaces, so you won't get any additional dependendies. LieGrue, strub --- On Wed, 8/26/09, Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: WebBeans "eating" JSF 2.0 annotations ? > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2009, 6:10 PM > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Mark > Struberg<[email protected]> > wrote: > > Matze, > > I think this would all become ok if _all_ the EE6 > parts will simply use the JSR-330 javax.inject.Scope > annotation as basis for their scopes. > > +1 > > > This would make at least the classpath scanning part a > hell lot easier (the context implementation in the > background still needs to be coded for each DI part, > > because there is no API defined for it except in > JSR-299). > > I agree > > > > > > > I already tried to convince Gavin and Pete to at least > use @Scope for JSR-299 scopes, but they refused so far. I > hope that there will be a really well founded _technical_ > discussion on this topic in the very near future though! > > > > +1 this is all political issues... sucks for the poor > developers. > > > My 'vision': > > > > *) JSR-330 defines the basic annotations for DI in > Java generally > > *) JSR-299 defines the annotations for EE related > stuff (@SessionScoped, RequestScoped) BASED ON JSR-330! > > *) JSF2 uses the @SessionScoped from JSR-299. Why > should JSF define own annotations? Even if you don't like to > use any 299 container, you may still use the annotations > defined in the API and provide an own small DI like MyFaces > does it right now. Don't know if it makes sense at all to > reinvite the wheel 10000 times... ;) > > > > Imagine you don't use EJB or anything else from JAvaEE, > just JSF (and > a servlet container). A dependency to 299-impl is a little > heavy, > right ? > > Heck, what we need is clean, simple and extensible > injection > "container" in SE land. Which is the base for every damn > thing. > > -Matthias >
