Comments on: Dependency injection to the rescue!

By: Cédrik

Cédrik — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:14:45 +0000

The Oracle comment is the only interesting one raising the JSR-250 existence. I don't want to choose between @Resource and @Inject!

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:54:45 +0000

299 vs. 330 is interesting … and a little comical. The first time I heard of 299 was a little more than 2 years ago. That year at JavaOne, I attended a joint talk by Bob and Gavin. It was a disjoint talk to say the least. Gavin mostly exclaimed “look at what we can do with your beans!” while Bob more calmly talked about how DI could be done faster, simpler, and more type safe. Bob didn’t say what he was comparing to, but it was obviously Spring. Two years later in this Java soap opera and Bob is teamed up with Spring… However, even two years ago not only were Bob and Gavin an odd couple, but Guice plus JSF or EJBs seemed like an even odder couple.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:38:41 +0000

@Scott: I don't pretend to be an expert on either jsr but I think there will be more detail and differences that come out as the expert group works on the spec. While there is a lot of shared goals, I think the intended audience is different and that may mean different things. JSR-330 commits to less with the goal of being open for more uses. Talking to Bob Lee at lunch yesterday, the Red Hat comments are based on the original version of the proposal and things have evolved since then. JSR-299 final draft has been submitted and Gavin had a lot of useful new comments here including some on JSR 330:

However, JSR-299 does not currently define a bootstrap API for starting and running the container standalone in the SE environment. Instead, this API is being defined by JSR-330. Unlike JSR-299, JSR-330 is not defining everything that is needed in order to write portable applications. So you'll still need JSR-299 if you want your application to be portable to other container implementations. Therefore, we plan a maintenance release of JSR-299 that includes support for the JSR-330 bootstrap API. For now, if you want to run JSR-299 in the SE environment, you'll need to use a vendor-specific bootstrap API.

By: Scott Ferguson

Scott Ferguson — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:33:34 +0000

If you look at the JSR-330 proposal, it’s essentially a renaming of JSR-299 annotations. So, really, this looks primarily like a complaint about class names, which seems rather petty to create a whole new JSR just to change some annotations.

@BindingType becomes @Qualifier. @ScopeType becomes @Scope. @ApplicationScoped becomes @Singleton. Instance becomes Producer.

The only real difference is JSR-330′s requirement of an explicit @Inject annotation, which I can see people disagreeing about, but again seems petty as a reason to start a whole JSR.

By: Jasper kong

Jasper kong — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:08:30 +0000

Isn’t this just Rod desperately trying, again and again, to dethrone Sun (soon Oracle) as the leader of the Java EE platform by pushing his own platform and container and setting his own standard?

Does Rod persuades people to hate Java EE out of the goodness of his heart or is there a double agenda and does he simply wants to push his own alternative container?