deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stuart Douglas <sdoug...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: @Proxy
Date Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:55:12 GMT
I suppose it depends on if https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-110 makes 
it into the specification.

This sounds equivalent to the solder @ServiceHandler annotation, 
although @ServiceHandler has another layer of indirection, so you do not 
need to specify the implementation class directly on the bean.

I think this is a useful feature.

Stuart


Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> wonder if we want the "already bridged proxy feature" (i'll explain don't
> worry ;)).
>
> There are cases where the implementation is boring and pretty obvious and
> defining an interface has the benefit to creates a semantic but the
> implementation itself is pretty useless (ex: spring-data, cdi-query, ...)
>
> We can of course do "as usually" and create proxy for all features needing
> it specifically.
>
> However i think this proxy feature is generic enough and could be pushed to
> the user if he wants to do so.
>
> Here some functional cases i think about which could use this feature:
> 1) (already cited) a cdi-query like
> 2) accessing JMX information (locally or not) without needed to use JMX API
> (
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/trunk/openejb/examples/dynamic-proxy-to-access-mbean/src/test/java/org/superbiz/dynamic/mbean/DynamicMBeanClient.java
> for
> instance)
> 3) creating a rest api easily from method name (getUserList ->  GET
> /user/list for instance)
> 4) ....
>
> it can go further allowing multiple handlers by interface
>
> wdyt?
>
> *Romain Manni-Bucau*
> *Twitter: @rmannibucau*
> *Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com*
>

Mime
View raw message