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 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 22:35:56 GMT
that's not needed. as a contextual instance you just have a (custom) proxy
instead of a simple instance of a class. the custom proxy executes the
handler logic >or< the implemented method provided via the abstract class.
the rest is std. cdi.

regards,
gerhard



2012/12/23 Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>

> Well, the big difference (apart from working on interfaces/abstract
> classes and not on distinct instances) is that CDI Interceptors and
> Decorators are defined as being @Dependent _on that particular instance_!
>
> This cannot be done in a portable way via an Extension as any @Dependent
> instances are stored in _and later restored from_ the CreationalContext.
> But there is no way to get an instance from the CreationalContext in a
> portable way.
>
> Thus either the handler has a specific NormalScope or if it's @Dependent
> we must create it for each method invocation. And of course (this is the
> part which most of the time is missing in other CDI extensions) we also
> must properly clean it up after each method invocation if the scope is
> @Dependent.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
> > To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 8:37 PM
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss ServiceHandler
> >
> > imo it should be as simple as possible, because so far we just heard one
> > use-case for which it really makes sense (DELTASPIKE-60 + abstract
> classes).
> > -> the following should be enough:
> >
> > @InvocationHandlerBinding
> > public @interface GenericDaoHandler {
> > }
> >
> > @GenericDaoHandler
> > public GenericDaoHandlerImpl implements InvocationHandler {
> >     //...
> > }
> >
> > @GenericDaoHandler
> > @ApplicationScoped //or any other scope
> > public abstract class PersonDao { //or interface
> >     //...
> > }
> >
> > @mark:
> > in the end it's just like an interceptor, but it just executes the
> > interceptor logic (without InvocationContext#proceed) >or< the
> implemented
> > method provided via an abstract class.
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
> >
> >
> >
> > 2012/12/23 John D. Ament <john.d.ament@gmail.com>
> >
> >>  Well, this object is used for a specific case. In my opinion, you
> should be
> >>  able to resolve it using
> >>
> >>  @Inject @QueryHandler
> >>  private InvocationHandler queryHandler;
> >>
> >>  Though why you may want to inject it in a client app is unknown to me;
> it
> >>  does make it easier from an implementation standpoint.
> >>
> >>  Does the service handler need to have any specific scope? Can it
> inherit
> >>  the scope of what it's handling? I guess not, since it could be a
> > handler
> >>  to n things.  NormalScope would be appropriate then.
> >>
> >>
> >>  On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>  > I guess because it might overlap with other qualifiers added in some
> >>  cases.
> >>  >
> >>  > What do we gain for making it a qualifier?
> >>  >
> >>  > Another important difference to CDI interceptors is that they are
> > always
> >>  > @Dependent to the intercepted instance.
> >>  > Whereas the ServiceHandler should be of NormalScope, isn't?
> >>  >
> >>  > LieGrue,
> >>  > strub
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  > ----- Original Message -----
> >>  > > From: John D. Ament <john.d.ament@gmail.com>
> >>  > > To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>  > > Cc:
> >>  > > Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 7:56 PM
> >>  > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
> >>  ServiceHandler
> >>  > >
> >>  > > Pete,
> >>  > >
> >>  > > Regarding interceptors - I think what I have is pretty close to
> > the
> >>  > > interceptor definition, except this should only end up working on
> > a
> >>  > > class/interface (I think?)
> >>  > >
> >>  > > Also, why wouldn't we want the annotation to also be a
> > qualifier?
> >>  > >
> >>  > > John
> >>  > >
> >>  > >
> >>  > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Pete Muir
> > <pmuir@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>  > >
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>  On 21 Dec 2012, at 02:21, John D. Ament wrote:
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>  > Hi all,
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > So just to summarize the current proposal:
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > - Create a new annotation @ServiceHandlerBinding (in
> > core/api)
> >>  which
> >>  > > will
> >>  > >>  > be placed on on the interface that defines points of
> > the
> >>  > >>  > - Create a new annotation @ServiceHandler (in core/api)
> > (I think
> >>  > based
> >>  > > on
> >>  > >>  > below this isn't needed since we have the interface
> > now).
> >>  > >>  > - Create an extension that can generate object proxies
> > that link
> >>  > calls
> >>  > > to
> >>  > >>  > methods on the - org.apache.deltaspike.core.api....
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > Define the binding type annotation:
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > @ServiceHandlerBinding
> >>  > >>  > @Qualifier
> >>  > >>  > public @interface QueryHandler {
> >>  > >>  > }
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>  I don't think we want @Qualifier here.
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > which will define the relationship between the
> > interface/abstract
> >>  > > class
> >>  > >>  > that will use the service handler and the class that
> > will serve as
> >>  > the
> >>  > >>  > invocation handler.
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > For example, we can use @QueryHandler on an interface:
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > @QueryHandler
> >>  > >>  > public interface PersonDAO {
> >>  > >>  > //...
> >>  > >>  > }
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > When the container finds this interface it will
> > identify the
> >>  > > appropriate
> >>  > >>  > InvocationHandler, based on the following matches:
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > - Implements InvocationHandler
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>  Yes.
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>  > - Is annotated @QueryHandler
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>  Ish, this should follow standard CDI resolution rules, you
> > can copy
> >>  the
> >>  > >>  way interceptor bindings work here.
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>  > - Is annotated @ServiceHandler
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>  Yes
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > DeltaSpike will provide a proxied object where all
> > abstract method
> >>  > > calls
> >>  > >>  > are delegated to the InvocationHandler.  The
> > InvocationHandler will
> >>  > > need
> >>  > >>  to
> >>  > >>  > have logic to handle all methods as defined within the
> > class, as
> >>  long
> >>  > > as
> >>  > >>  > that method is invoked through the InvocationHandler.
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > @QueryHandler @ServiceHandler
> >>  > >>  > public QueryHandlerInvoker implements InvocationHandler
> > {
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > public Object invoke(Object proxy, Method method,
> > Object[] args) {
> >>  > >>  > if(method.getName().startsWith("find..."){
> >>  > >>  > //...
> >>  > >>  > }
> >>  > >>  > return null;
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > }
> >>  > >>  > }
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > In addition, the ServiceHandlerBinding can be placed on
> > an abstract
> >>  > >>  class.
> >>  > >>  > In this case, only abstract methods will be passed to
> > the
> >>  > >>  > InvocationHandler.
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > @QueryHandler
> >>  > >>  > public abstract interface PersonDAO {
> >>  > >>  > public String doSomethingConcrete() {
> >>  > >>  > return "concrete";
> >>  > >>  > }
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > public abstract Person find(int id);
> >>  > >>  > }
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > Only the find method will be wrapped, the method
> >>  doSomethingConcrete
> >>  > > will
> >>  > >>  > be invoked directly.  When interacting with an abstract
> > class, the
> >>  > >>  > InvocationHandler can call methods on the proxied
> > object.
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > Finally, the app developer will be able to simply
> > inject their
> >>  > >>  > interface/abstract class in to their beans to perform
> > work:
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > @Inject @QueryHandler PersonDAO dao;
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > Questions:
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > Should we provide a store (simple key/value map) to
> > keep a history
> >>  of
> >>  > >>  found
> >>  > >>  > object types and how they map?
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>  You mean like BeanManager.resolveInterceptors() ? I guess
> > this is
> >>  > useful.
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>  > Should we depend on certain libraries for proxying
> > (e.g.
> >>  javassist, I
> >>  > >>  think
> >>  > >>  > both Weld & OWB use this still?)
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>  If you want to just cover interfaces, it's easy, you can
> > use proxying
> >>  > > from
> >>  > >>  the JDK. Otherwise yes you need to pick a lib.
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>  Weld doesn't use javassist for proxying, but does for
> > other stuff.
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>  > Since we now use the interface InvocationHandler should
> > we rename
> >>  the
> >>  > >>  > binding to be InvocationHandlerBinding?
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>  Yes, this makes sense
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>  >  I also think it's not necessary to
> >>  > >>  > have @ServiceHandler since the marker interface now
> > exists.
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>  +1
> >>  > >>
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > Comments welcome..
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > John
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Jason Porter
> >>  > > <lightguard.jp@gmail.com
> >>  > >>  >wrote:
> >>  > >>  >
> >>  > >>  >> +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