Mark Struberg

You are right, it's not invalid or asserting something unexpected. But we only test one out of 2 different routes. We imo should test both. *edit* I changed the title...

There is so much wrong claims in this thread that I'm not able to catch up even. For example this: > The real reason why Full includes the entirety of...

> > > > The only thing that's actually new in CDI 4.0 is the built compatible extension API. Are you suggesting to make that optional? > I'm game --...

> Your other suggestion to require extension authors to correctly serialize their state is a recipe for disaster frankly (how do you serialize a client proxy to JSON?) Wow, you...

> In other words, it's not a generic solution at all. You were talking about client proxies. For those the additional rules of ```6.6.3 Passivation capable dependencies```apply, especially ```all beans...

> Java EE/Jakarta EE in general has historically favored profiles over optional features. Did it really? Afair profiles only got introduced in JavaEE 6 (2010). Optional features otoh have been...

> I don't see that we would go the route of optional as that has been explicitly called out as no longer desired by the spec committee. But got broken...

@Emily-Jiang Do you think we should still add any additional clarification or hint to the spec? Or do you (also) think we are good now and whoever implements such edge...

We might also end up with coming to the conclusion that we don't want to define this in the spec and leave it to the implementations whether they want to...

Yes, I'm not sure myself why it's TYPE, but TYPE is really cool as it allows us to apply it to interfaces! In Geronimo-config we used this to implement interface-style...