deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss ServiceHandler
Date Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:06:04 GMT
i'd rather say no because the idea is to ease "util" extension
writing. that's clearly not intended to be full business beans IMO (at
least for a first step)

That's why i'd leave it as this for now

wdyt?

Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau



2012/12/20 Arne Limburg <arne.limburg@openknowledge.de>:
> Mark refers to my call stack.
>
> Out of the box this call stack would exist just in OWB, because Weld would
> not apply any Interceptors or Decorators...
>
> The question is: Should DS support Interceptors and Decorators on
> InvocationHandler beans? My answer would be: yes, if our implementation
> shall be a preview of CDI-110.
> And that would make things complicated in the implementation...
>
> Am 20.12.12 12:11 schrieb "Romain Manni-Bucau" unter
> <rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>
>>is it an issue for servicehandler? i don't think so
>>
>>it is often used to get util classes dynamically created, it is rarely
>>(i never saw it) decorated directly
>>
>>
>>Romain Manni-Bucau
>>Twitter: @rmannibucau
>>Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>>LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>>Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>
>>
>>
>>2012/12/20 Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>:
>>> we stumbled about this lately. It seems CDI only forces support for
>>>interceptors and decorators for CDI-annotated classes, but not for
>>>Bean<T> which get added via extensions nor even producer methods and
>>>fields :/
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course OWB does it, but it would be not portable...
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Arne Limburg <arne.limburg@openknowledge.de>
>>>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>>>><deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:18 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
>>>>ServiceHandler
>>>>
>>>>T wo things about this: First: I don't like from the solder approach,
>>>> because the interface is annotated instead of the implementation.
>>>>
>>>> Second, if we implement this we should conceptually make clear how it
>>>> differentiates from Interceptors and Decorators. And personally I think
>>>> this would work better with the InvocationHandler approach than with an
>>>> approach that is very similar to interceptors.
>>>>
>>>> So +1 for an approach like this:
>>>>
>>>> @HandlesInvocationsOn(MyInterface.class)
>>>> public class MyInvocationHandler implements InvocationHandler {
>>>>   ...
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Technically we would register a custom Bean for every found
>>>> InvocationHandler with that annotation and take over the
>>>> interceptor-bindings from the interfaceŠ
>>>> So the invocation stack would be clear, too:
>>>> First Interceptors,
>>>> Second Decorators,
>>>> Third InvocationHandler
>>>>
>>>> Wdyt?
>>>>
>>>> Arne
>>>>
>>>> Am 20.12.12 01:53 schrieb "Romain Manni-Bucau" unter
>>>> <rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> that's a need, DS targets CDI 1.0 for now so just make this solder
>>>>> part portable ans it should be fine
>>>>>
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>>>>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>>>>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>>>>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2012/12/20 Jason Porter <lightguard.jp@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>  At this point, I'd say just do it as is in solder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:25 PM, John D. Ament
>>>>>> <john.d.ament@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Hi All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Regarding the two open questions:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   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 ->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  It looks like the JSR's answer
>>>>>>> (https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-110 )
>>>>>>>  is still unresolved - I'm not sure if we can get any further
>>>> answer at
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>  time.  The last posts on the subject seem to discuss using
>>>> something
>>>>>>> along
>>>>>>>  the lines of an invocation handler, which I think would work
well.
>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>  we have some features coming up that are interested in having
>>>> service
>>>>>>>  handlers available, do we
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  1. Implement as is, or similar to, what is currently in Solder?
>>>>>>>  2. Push EG on a resolution
>>>>>>>  3. Do it using invocation handlers.
>>>>>>>  4. Do it some other way?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Gerhard Petracek <
>>>>>>>  gerhard.petracek@gmail.com
>>>>>>>  > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  > 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-
>>>>>>>ser
>>>>>>> vicehandler.html
>>>>>>>  > > > >>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  > > > >>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Regards,
>>>>>>>  > > > >>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  > > > >>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  john
>>>>>>>  > > > >>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  > > > >>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  > > > >>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  > > > >>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  > > > >>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  > > > >>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  > > > >>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  > > > >>> > >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  > > > >>> > >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  > > > >>> > >>>>>
>>>>>>>  > > > >>> > >>
>>>>>>>  > > > >>> > >>
>>>>>>>  > > > >>> >
>>>>>>>  > > > >>> >
>>>>>>>  > > > >>>
>>>>>>>  > > > >>
>>>>>>>  > > > >>
>>>>>>>  > > > >
>>>>>>>  > > >
>>>>>>>  > >
>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  --
>>>>>>  Jason Porter
>>>>>>  http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com
>>>>>>  http://twitter.com/lightguardjp
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Software Engineer
>>>>>>  Open Source Advocate
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  PGP key id: 926CCFF5
>>>>>>  PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu
>>>>
>

Mime
View raw message