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 19:37:54 GMT
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