deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss ServiceHandler
Date Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:50:04 GMT
hi john,

as mentioned before we need the answers to the existing questions.

regards,
gerhard



2012/4/4 John D. Ament <john.d.ament@gmail.com>

> All,
>
> I kind of let this one and the other drop off my radar, I apologize.  it
> looks like where we last left off, Gerhard was still requesting additional
> comments from everyone.  Any other feedback?
>
> John
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Gerhard Petracek <
> gerhard.petracek@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > hi george,
> >
> > thx for the information. i thought there might be at least some
> additional
> > answers/clarifications, since pete asked for them in several comments.
> > -> imo we should continue with them.
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
> >
> >
> >
> > 2012/3/12 George Gastaldi <gegastaldi@gmail.com>
> >
> > > Hello Gerhard,
> > >
> > > Yeah, it´s the last state. I know it´s quite old, but I haven´t had
> time
> > > to work on it after that.
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > George
> > >
> > >
> > > 2012/3/12 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
> > >
> > >> hi george,
> > >>
> > >> thx for the link.
> > >> i'm not sure if it is the latest state of your discussion and/or draft
> > >> (at least it's quite old already).
> > >>
> > >> regards,
> > >> gerhard
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2012/3/7 George Gastaldi <gegastaldi@gmail.com>
> > >>
> > >>> Hi !
> > >>>
> > >>> +1 to #1. I also agree that the term "Service Handler" might not be
> so
> > >>> appropriate, so it should be discussed as well.
> > >>> Here is the latest pull request with some comments from Pete yet to
> be
> > >>> reviewed: https://github.com/jboss/cdi/pull/28
> > >>>
> > >>> 2012/3/7 Pete Muir <pmuir@redhat.com>
> > >>>
> > >>> > Agreed :-)
> > >>> >
> > >>> > George is working on it for CDI 1.1. George, can you share your
> > >>> proposal
> > >>> > so far?
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On 7 Mar 2012, at 17:05, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > > hi pete,
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > independent of my opinion about the feature (which is still
+0):
> > >>> > > if it should be part of cdi 1.1, we have the following options
> imo:
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > 1) the approach (including the name/s) we agree on will be
used
> > also
> > >>> for
> > >>> > > cdi 1.1 (the only difference is the package)
> > >>> > > 2) the eg has a different opinion about it ->
> > >>> > > 2a) the rest of the eg joins this discussion
> > >>> > > 2b) we wait for the final version and just allow the same
with
> cdi
> > >>> 1.0
> > >>> > > 3) if the eg doesn't agree on the idea, it should be re-visited
> for
> > >>> > > deltaspike (if we really need it)
> > >>> > > 4) we agree on it independent of the result in cdi 1.1
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > 1-3 is ok for me but -1 for #4
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > regards,
> > >>> > > gerhard
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > 2012/3/7 Pete Muir <pmuir@redhat.com>
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >> I'm not sure what you mean by a "super interceptor",
but if you
> > >>> mean it
> > >>> > as
> > >>> > >> in "super man" (something better than an interceptor),
then I
> > would
> > >>> > >> disagree, it's actually a specialised form of interceptor.
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> The best use case I know of is the one John mentions
- creating
> > type
> > >>> > safe
> > >>> > >> references to queries:
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> @QueryService
> > >>> > >> interface UserQuery {
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >>  @Query("select u from User u")
> > >>> > >>  public List<User> getAllUsers();
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >>  @Query("select u from User u order by u.name")
> > >>> > >>  public List<User> getAllUsersSortedByName();
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> }
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> Now, it may be the case that there aren't any other use
cases
> for
> > >>> > service
> > >>> > >> handlers, in which case we should perhaps just offer
this
> > particular
> > >>> > >> service handler - references to type safe queries - as
I think
> > this
> > >>> is
> > >>> > an
> > >>> > >> extremely powerful idea.
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> Note, that at the moment service handlers are scheduled
for CDI
> > 1.1.
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> On 7 Mar 2012, at 02:35, Jason Porter wrote:
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >>> Somewhat. I wouldn't really think of them as overrides,
they,
> to
> > >>> me,
> > >>> > >> seem more like items to do in addition to whatever the
original
> > impl
> > >>> > does.
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >>> ServiceHandlers to me seem more like super interceptors.
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPhone
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >>> On Mar 6, 2012, at 19:23, "John D. Ament" <
> > john.d.ament@gmail.com>
> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >>>> @jason
> > >>> > >>>>
> > >>> > >>>> I think the concepts are very dissimilar.  servicehandlers
> > create
> > >>> the
> > >>> > >>>> implementation.  delegates are more like overrides
and need to
> > >>> know
> > >>> > >> about
> > >>> > >>>> the method signature.
> > >>> > >>>>
> > >>> > >>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Jason Porter
<
> > >>> lightguard.jp@gmail.com
> > >>> > >>> wrote:
> > >>> > >>>>
> > >>> > >>>>> I think the idea of ServiceHandlers are good,
but, could we
> not
> > >>> do
> > >>> > this
> > >>> > >>>>> with delegates?
> > >>> > >>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> > >>> > >>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>> On Mar 6, 2012, at 19:05, "John D. Ament"
<
> > >>> john.d.ament@gmail.com>
> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > >>> > >>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>> @mark
> > >>> > >>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>> I don't think it's a hard requirement
for it to be on an
> > >>> interface.
> > >>> > >>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>> One of the best use-cases we built at
my job is using it for
> > >>> calling
> > >>> > >>>>>> PL/SQL.  The JDBC bindings do work, but
not pretty.  we were
> > >>> able to
> > >>> > >>>>> create
> > >>> > >>>>>> a fairly clean wrapper API, generic enough
for binding
> in/out
> > >>> > >> parameters.
> > >>> > >>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>> JOhn
> > >>> > >>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Mark
Struberg <
> > >>> struberg@yahoo.de>
> > >>> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>> > >>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>> actually I don't really see a real
benefit. I just don't
> yet
> > >>> grok
> > >>> > the
> > >>> > >>>>> use
> > >>> > >>>>>>> case for real world projects.
> > >>> > >>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>> Why would one intercept an Interface
and delegate the calls
> > to
> > >>> a
> > >>> > >> method
> > >>> > >>>>>>> handler?
> > >>> > >>>>>>> This could be neat for mocking, but
there are better
> > >>> frameworks for
> > >>> > >>>>> that.
> > >>> > >>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>> thus
> > >>> > >>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>> -0.2
> > >>> > >>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>> LieGrue,
> > >>> > >>>>>>> strub
> > >>> > >>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> From: Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> Cc:
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012
5:15 PM
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113]
Review and Discuss
> > >>> > >>>>> ServiceHandler
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> if you have a lot of shared code,
you can extract it in
> 1-n
> > >>> > >> method/s or
> > >>> > >>>>>>> an
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> abstract class which is still
easier than a new concept.
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> at least i haven't seen an use-case
which really needed
> it.
> > >>> that
> > >>> > was
> > >>> > >>>>> the
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> reason for a +0 (which still
means that i'm ok with adding
> > >>> it).
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> regards,
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> gerhard
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> 2012/3/6 Pete Muir <pmuir@redhat.com>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>> So, you mean just write a
bean with all the boilerplate
> > code
> > >>> in
> > >>> > it?
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>> On 6 Mar 2012, at 15:58,
Gerhard Petracek wrote:
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> hi pete,
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> instead of the interface
you can just implement a bean
> > which
> > >>> > does
> > >>> > >> the
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>> same.
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> regards,
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> gerhard
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>> 2012/3/6 Pete Muir <pmuir@redhat.com>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> What CDI mechanism
would you use instead?
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2012, at
08:47, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> +0
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> no -1 because
there are use-cases for it.
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> no +1 because
i would use std. cdi mechanisms instead.
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> regards,
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> gerhard
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/3/4 Gerhard
Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com
> >
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> hi john,
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the sub-task
is perfectly fine.
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> regards,
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> gerhard
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/3/4
John D. Ament <john.d.ament@gmail.com>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted
to bring up the subject of ServiceHandler.
>  I
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> added 113 as a
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> child
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of DELTASPIKE-2,
looked appropriate but not 100%
> sure
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> (so please let
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>> me
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
if you think it's not appropriate as a
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> child).  ServiceHandler
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>> is
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature
in Solder that allows you to define an
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> interceptor that
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>> manages
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic
calls against an injected interface.  The
> API
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> is as follows:
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - @ServiceHandlerType(Class<?>
clazz) - placed
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> on an annotation that
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> would
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be placed
on the interface.  Indicates what
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> interceptor would be
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> invoked
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for calls
against this interface.
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's
then up to the application
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> developer/framework author to
define
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> annotations
that go on methods, as well as the
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> interceptor itself
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>> that
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be invoked.
 The feature for ServiceHandler would be
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> to provide the
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> API of
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the type
and then the infrastructure required to
> make
> > >>> > >>>>>>>> the interceptor
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> be
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> called.
 Existing documentation of the feature:
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> >
> http://docs.jboss.org/seam/3/3.1.0.Final/reference/en-US/html/solder-servicehandler.html
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> john
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>>>
> > >>> > >>>>>
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message