gnodet commented on PR #1337: URL: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/1337#issuecomment-1860051716
> I agree with [49cec29](https://github.com/apache/maven/commit/49cec292edce1b8aeb5d8f54a7e729ad70f00a5b) commit: if component changed to session scope, no need for provider. But I don't understand 2nd commit [5ce5279](https://github.com/apache/maven/commit/5ce52798bea3c990bd407ef3b6cf2e5b6000e7fd) that left components singletons, but you removed the provider. > > Can you explain that? As your 2nd commit makes mandatory to rebuild component graph in case of schema change, while with provider it was possible without doing that. So what kind of schema change do you have in mind exactly ? I'm not buying the idea to use Provider at the injection point to control the lifecycle of dependent beans. If we suppose a plugin can register any kind of component and that it should override the default component set, then all injection points have to use Provider. Such components are supposed to be provided by extensions, which do not change. Fwiw, I think we do overuse the `@Singleton` and most components are defined as singletons but this is unnecessary because they are stateless. `@Singleton` should be used for classes that actually need to be singletons. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
