Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add jakarta.batch API module-info #192
Add jakarta.batch API module-info #192
Changes from 2 commits
1557fec
2792b10
5d781c1
0353482
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's OK that jakarta.cdi is optional. But shouldn't we also add an explicit dependency on jakarta.inject, since that one is really required all the time to support batch properties injection?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I apologize since though I brought up this issue, I don't think my comments have kept up with the code I pushed here.
I see your point and we could make this change (I'd be OK with that).
One point I started to make: it is possible to have an application that just starts and monitors, etc. jobs via JobOperator that does NOT itself require 'inject'.
So from a purely minimalist point of view I think the case could be made that it's "optional", strictly speaking.
However... jakarta.inject is a small API that doesn't drag in other dependencies while jakarta.cdi is a good bit bigger.
If you think a more reasonable compromise is to include a runtime dependency for jakarta.inject, and keep the jakarta.cdi dependency as static/optional... I'd believe you. I don't have a lot of real-world experience with JPMS to be honest.
@rmannibucau had commented too on this point.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's see it one level higher: Scott is right inject is optional for end user but if the end user needs it, it will add it cause its code depends on it so let's ensure it is statically required only maybe? it would also align with the API itself which has both jars as provided (https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/batch-api/blob/master/api/pom.xml#L33)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My thinking was along what the spec requires from the implementation. And DI support is mandatory, while CDI support is optional, am I wrong? Therefore, since DI needs to be in the impl, it should be mandatory. And also transitive so that it's available to the user even if they only require batch and not jakarta.inject. Now I realize that required modules aren't automatically transitive, so I'd suggest that we add the following:
I only suggest it because it seems as the purest solution for me (works like maven - you only need to require batch and you can also use @Inject without any other required module). I don't insist on it, we can leave it to the user to add the dependency on DI or revisit this in a later version of the spec.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What if we do:
This way we get a single dependency for the typical application with a batch job implementation (artifacts, etc.), and a user still has the option to build a batch operator/client without using inject or cdi.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That sounds good, I agree with that.