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: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config)
Date Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:30:15 GMT
i agree with mark.

@ antoine:
that's not the only part which crashes with candi.
(we contacted them multiple times - so they are welcome to join the effort
at any time.)

regards,
gerhard



2012/7/9 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>

> should be fine in core if it respects the way DS modules are done = they
> can be switched by config
>
> - Romain
>
>
> 2012/7/9 Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine@sabot-durand.net>
>
> > +1 I agree with Pete on this but we should pay attention to Candi
> > compatibility. Seam config crashes with Caucho Candi which already has
> its
> > own xml config solution. Having introduced it in JBoss Solder made Seam 3
> > incompatible with Resin.
> >
> > I agree that core is a good place for xml config as long as we check that
> > it won't make Deltaspike unusable with Resin.
> >
> >
> >
> > Antoine
> >
> > Le 7 juil. 2012 à 12:33, Pete Muir a écrit :
> >
> > > +1 to adding it from me.
> > >
> > > XML config is probably the feature (as opposed to enhancement to
> > existing feature or "bug" fix) most requested for CDI. I think we need
> > something like this in DeltaSpike, in order to fulfil our goals.
> > >
> > > A non compiled format such as XML (or YAML or ...) makes a lot of sense
> > for *configuration* of an application (as opposed to wiring [1]),
> > >
> > > As Jason said, this is the only known XML config (dialect and impl) for
> > CDI, so I think it's quite uncontroversial. The "API" of the config is
> > actually the XML dialect, which has received a lot of attention in the
> past
> > (designed for CDI 1.0, so fully reviewed by the EG).
> > >
> > > BTW I'm not understanding why putting it in a separate module makes a
> > difference? It's dependencies are basically zero (CDI API and SAX, which
> is
> > in the JDK), and I think if it goes in it's own package, it shouldn't
> cause
> > contention on class files. Personally, I think this is a core concern,
> and
> > as it doesn't introduce dependencies can go easily into the core.
> > >
> > > On 6 Jul 2012, at 21:14, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > >
> > >> +0 since i'm not sure XML is really CDI spirit...and it needs to be
> > >> consistent with already existing config (global alternatives etc)
> which
> > can
> > >> be a bit complicated
> > >>
> > >> - Romain
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2012/7/6 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
> > >>
> > >>> i'm not sure if we should start with it for v0.4, however, if it gets
> > an
> > >>> own (optional) module: +0
> > >>>
> > >>> regards,
> > >>> gerhard
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> 2012/7/6 Jason Porter <lightguard.jp@gmail.com>
> > >>>
> > >>>> It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we haven't done it yet.
> > >>> Thoughts
> > >>>> on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from what we
have
> in
> > >>> Seam
> > >>>> 3 with package name changes. It's currently the only implementation
> in
> > >>>> existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that was to
be
> > part
> > >>> of
> > >>>> spec but was later pulled.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Jason Porter
> > >>>> http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com
> > >>>> http://twitter.com/lightguardjp
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Software Engineer
> > >>>> Open Source Advocate
> > >>>> Author of Seam Catch - Next Generation Java Exception Handling
> > >>>>
> > >>>> PGP key id: 926CCFF5
> > >>>> PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >
> >
> >
>

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