deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Porter <lightguard...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss ServiceHandler
Date Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:33:12 GMT
+1 for @ServiceHandler


On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 9:39 AM, John D. Ament <john.d.ament@gmail.com>wrote:

> If we're still calling the feature "ServiceHandler" then why not
> @ServiceHandler?
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
> <rmannibucau@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > if we don't need it perfect, if we need it we'll just use another name
> > @DSHandler, @Handler...whatever it is ;)
> >
> > 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 Pete Muir <pmuir@redhat.com>:
> > > :-) Yes for sure. I suspect we dont' need @InvocationHandler at all.
> > >
> > > On 20 Dec 2012, at 16:30, John D. Ament wrote:
> > >
> > >> The problem I have is that now InvocationHandler is both an interface
> > and
> > >> an @interface which will make it impossible for imports.  I don't
> think
> > >> they should have the same name.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 20 Dec 2012, at 12:32, John D. Ament wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> All,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So mostly ok from my perspective.  One thing to note:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> @InvocationHandlerBinding
> > >>>> public @interface Repository {}
> > >>>>
> > >>>> @Repository
> > >>>> public interface MyRepository {
> > >>>> ...
> > >>>> }
> > >>>>
> > >>>> @Repository @InvocationHandler
> > >>>> public class MyInvocationHandler implements InvocationHandler {
> > >>>> ...
> > >>>> }
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Why do we have a @InvocationHandler here? Is it supposed to be
> > >>>> @InvocationHandlerBinding instead?  If so, is it really needed here?
> > >>>
> > >>> No, it should be @InvocationHandler, it's analagous to @Interceptor.
> > It's
> > >>> not 100% necessary as we already implement the interface, which is
> > enough
> > >>> of the marker.
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thinking about the implementation for this, I think this actually
> > becomes
> > >>>> easier to use and easier to understand over the Solder solution.
>  The
> > >>>> implementation of the InvocationHandler becomes a true CDI bean.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Should DS support Interceptors and Decorators on
> > >>>> InvocationHandler beans?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Do you mean the implementation class or the interface?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> John
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
> > >>>> <rmannibucau@gmail.com>wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> 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
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> >
>



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