Mark, what's the issue? The thing to take care is to not create a module simply for integration. But a module by feature is fine and nice IMO.
- Romain 2012/6/27 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > Romain, Arne. > > > Please make suggestions which classes/features we should push into which > module. Any suggestion is welcome > I think our whole JPA functionality is not that huge and are just 30 > classes overall. Splitting those into 6 modules (3x api + impl each) might > really be too much! > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > >________________________________ > > From: Arne Limburg <[email protected]> > >To: "[email protected]" < > [email protected]> > >Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:07 PM > >Subject: AW: cdi-query > > > >I completely agree with Romain on that topic > > > >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > >Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:[email protected]] > >Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2012 11:46 > >An: [email protected] > >Betreff: Re: cdi-query > > > >Still not totally agree on modules stuff (should it be pushed in another > thread?), in particular from a user perspective. I think allowing users to > take small bundle or an already aggregated one (shade) is a great feature. > > > >- Romain > > > > > >2012/6/27 Thomas Hug <[email protected]> > > > >> @Mark, +1 on not being excessive on the amount of modules. As a user I > >> don't think I'd like maintaining another x dependencies, those POMs > >> are usually big enough :-) Anyway, depending on the amount of features > >> integrating for such a query API, that might well fall into the > >> "decent size" category. > >> > >> @Pete, +1 for the ServiceHandler - IMO very convenient when using > >> methods just as metadata (e.g. for calling stored procs, obviously JPA > >> queries or a JAX-RS client). > >> > >> @Jason, Bernard: Agree that I have rarely used the Home API in a > >> productive application, still I found it quite handy for prototyping. > >> Could be useful to add this on top of a query API (and create e.g. a > >> Forge scaffolding provider?). > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Tom > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 07:58 > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: cdi-query > >> > >> I fear that would get us into jarmageddon... > >> > >> We discussed the module structure at the very beginning, and we all > >> concluded that there are 2 reasons for introducing a new module: > >> .) a dependency to another project or EE api (like jta, jpa, jsf) > >> .) an area which is an completely own block and has a decent size (min > >> ~30..50 new classes) > >> > >> Since the whole JPA area doesn't have more than 10 classes yet, I do > >> not see a reason for introducing a new API for them. > >> > >> Also the whole EE vs SE is moot imo. Either we have a new API or not. > >> The classic J2EE patterns are dead dead dead anyway. EE-6 gave us much > >> better possibilities, so we should use them and not fall back to _old_ > EE patterns. > >> > >> What we could do is to disucss whether the 'jta' module would better > >> called 'deltaspike-jpa-ee' and not only contain JTA but also > >> TransactionAttributeType handling from EJB? > >> > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > >> > To: [email protected] > >> > Cc: > >> > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:30 AM > >> > Subject: Re: cdi-query > >> > > >> > +1 > >> > > >> > - Romain > >> > > >> > > >> > 2012/6/26 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > >> > > >> >> @ pete: > >> >> +1 > >> >> > >> >> @ java-se vs java-ee features: > >> >> > >> >> we can think about a more fine-grained structure (similar to seam3). > >> >> e.g.: > >> >> deltaspike-jpa-transaction > >> >> deltaspike-jpa-query > >> >> ... > >> >> > >> >> regards, > >> >> gerhard > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2012/6/25 Pete Muir <[email protected]> > >> >> > >> >> > Well, we were looking for some good use cases for the > ServiceHandler. > >> >> > > >> >> > I would be in support of adding it to DS core, now we have a > >> >> strong > >> > use > >> >> > case. > >> >> > > >> >> > Property util should not be controversial. Maybe we can improve > >> > it's API > >> >> > whilst we are at it :-) > >> >> > > >> >> > On 25 Jun 2012, at 10:25, Thomas Hug wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > Eventually this came in a little early, but it's already on > >> > the radar: > >> >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-60 > >> >> > > > >> >> > > The current implementation mainly depends on the Solder > >> > ServiceHandler > >> >> > (as far as I remember not yet in DS, waiting for CDI 1.1) and > >> >> the Property > utils. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Cheers, > >> >> > > Tom > >> >> > > > >> >> > > ________________________________________ > >> >> > > Von: Mark Struberg [[email protected]] > > Gesendet: Montag, > >> >> 25. Juni 2012 14:21 > > An: [email protected] > >> >> > > Betreff: Re: cdi-query > >> >> > > > >> >> > > +1 great stuff to review and add them! > >> >> > > > >> >> > > That would fit great into the deltaspike-jpa module, wdyt? > >> >> > > > >> >> > > LieGrue, > >> >> > > strub > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> >> > >> From: Pete Muir <[email protected]> > >> To: > >> >> [email protected] > >> >> > >> Cc: > >> >> > >> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:53 PM > >> Subject: Re: > >> >> cdi-query > >> > >> IMO this would be a great thing to add! > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> On 24 Jun 2012, at 16:56, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >>> Hi, > >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> just browsed > >> >> > http://ctpconsulting.github.com/query/1.0.0.Alpha4/index.html > >> >> > >> and > >> >> > >>> it is really amazing (a spring-data CDI oriented). > >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> it is currently based on solder but since DS integrates a > >> > lot of this > >> >> > stuff > >> >> > >>> i wonder if it could be integrated in DS in a really > >> > portable way? > >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> - Romain > >> >> > >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
