Matej Novotny

@ljnelson are you willing to propose a PR for this change? We're nearing an M1 milestone for next CDI release (bound to happen late Nov), so I am trying to...

The test is changed to correspond to changes summarized in https://github.com/jakartaee/cdi/issues/500 The initial description as well as my comment (https://github.com/jakartaee/cdi/issues/500#issuecomment-1405221674) should explain the current state in CDI 4. In short,...

> Can we agree that what's being challenged is the spec itself? If so, we can keep this issue open but we'd need to move it to the spec repo...

True, this has come up during development and I agree a "portable flag" would be a better option. However, CDI itself doesn't have an app wide config mechanism through which...

Is there further discussion to be had @dblevins? We have separate issue for updating TCK to provide the ability to test the switch. The only other thing we could do...

> This issue is extremely vague. It might be just me, but I can't understand what the objection here really is. Same here, more details would be nice :) BTW,...

That doesn't explain much in terms of how is this related to CDI specification? CDI isn't a design pattern cookbook :shrug:

> Also a PIP might not be valid so a user might have reacted to a PIP event and now it's not valid anymore, so we have to trigger a...

Sorry, I was on PTO last week, hence my late answer. In order not to interfere with Quarkus behavior (or any CDI Lite framework for that matter) and avoid discovery,...

> That's exactly what I was thinking. I'll work on a draft PR with what I was thinking to see if you all think it's reasonable to add here. I...