well in that case I gonna blame myself *slapme* and gonna change it silently :D
LieGrue, strub >________________________________ > From: Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> >To: [email protected]; Mark Struberg <[email protected]> >Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 8:57 AM >Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] BeanManagerProvider API > > >@mark: >you can ask the person who did it for myfaces codi (see [1]) :) > > >regards, >gerhard > >[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=929170 > > > > >2012/1/23 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > >+1 >> >>But why do we need the manual setBeanManager public at all? >>I'll go on and make it protected. >> >> >>LieGrue, >>strub >> >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >> >>> From: Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Cc: >> >>> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 7:56 AM >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] BeanManagerProvider API >>> >>> hi christian, >>> >>> thx for moving this discussion to the mailing list! >>> >>> actually you don't have to check it because it would fail earlier. >>> due to the basic mechanism you would see an IllegalStateException in >>> #getInstance, if the cdi implementation isn't configured correctly (this >>> topic is related to an upcoming discussion). >>> >>> the only case i can see right now would be caused by a manual call of >>> #setBeanManager which resets it. >>> -> imo we have to decide if we allow such a manual call. >>> >>> in general we should also discuss if we re-use existing exception types (if >>> it makes sense) or if we create our own types. >>> >>> regards, >>> gerhard >>> >>> >>> >>> 2012/1/23 Christian Kaltepoth <[email protected]> >>> >>>> Hey @all, >>>> >>>> yesterday I had a deeper look at the BeanManagerProvider >>>> implementation and found something that could be improved. I created >>>> DELTASPIKE-56 (see [1]) for this but it turned out that we should >>>> discuss this topic on the mailing list. >>>> >>>> I saw that getBeanManager() may return null in some rare >>>> circumstances. Unfortunately this forces everyone calling this method >>>> to check the result for null. I think most code calling the method >>>> absolutely requires the BeanManager and cannot proceed without it. >>>> >>>> My first idea was to add another method getRequiredBeanManager() that >>>> doesn't return null if the BeanManager is not available but instead >>>> throws a meaningful runtime exception. That's what Solder does per >>>> default. Calling Solder's BeanManagerLocator.getBeanManager() without >>>> a BeanManager being available will result in a >>>> BeanManagerUnavailableException (see [2]). >>>> >>>> However Mark suggested that throwing an exception should be the >>>> default behavior. I for myself like Mark's idea. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> Christian >>>> >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-56 >>>> [2] >>>> >>> https://github.com/seam/solder/blob/master/api/src/main/java/org/jboss/solder/beanManager/BeanManagerLocator.java#L82 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Christian Kaltepoth >>>> Blog: http://chkal.blogspot.com/ >>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal >>>> >>> >> > > >
