I guess that should not be too difficult (as the qualifier approach was already in the original CDI query impl). RE fix, working on it right now. Tests around the feature are kind of whacky so rewriting these. Hope I will be able to push a couple if JIRA items today.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>wrote: > If it possible to have both behavior? Adding a class for it while you can > have in some kind of project a module qualifier is too much IMO. Supporting > both in the em lookup impl should be easy. > > PS: whatever the answer to previous question is, is it possible to get a > 0.5.1 soon with the fix? > > *Romain Manni-Bucau* > *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* > *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*< > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> > *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* > *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* > > > > 2013/10/2 Thomas Hug <[email protected]> > > > Hi Romain, > > if I remember correctly the idea with a resolver was to make things > > consistent over DS (similar constructs in the JSF module). > > ...and yes, there's a return missing (d'oh!). Will create a ticket / fix. > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > [email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > in > org.apache.deltaspike.data.impl.handler.EntityManagerLookup#lookupFor > > we > > > use the em resolver then we return the entityManager.get() instead of > the > > > result. Is it intended? > > > > > > Why not using a qualifier to resolve the em? It was easier IMO > > > > > > *Romain Manni-Bucau* > > > *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* > > > *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*< > > > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> > > > *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* > > > *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* > > > > > >
