@romain: i don't see an issue here - if you add the ds-servlet-module, you just drop your own producers (which overlap and should do the same anyway).
regards, gerhard 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > well in fact I saw a lot of cdi 1.0 app producing http* objects > without qualifier cause it was missing in cdi so conflicts can occurs > and are quite common > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: > > we had no qualifier for FacesContext (in codi, seam3,...). since it used > to > > be a common producer, we saw "compatibility issues". > > however, with a proper documentation (how to veto one of them), no user > > (i'm aware of) had a real issue with it and for the majority it was > easier > > to use (because there wasn't an issue at all). > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > > > > > 2014/1/4 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > > > >> > >> > >> The question for me is: are there already known producers for it or is > >> there any spec which introduces this? > >> In that case a custom qualifier is always a good idea imo. Otherwise we > >> would face different behaviour on different containers. They most times > >> behave different... > >> I just would like to avoid possible incompatibilities. And for this a > >> Qualifier certainly works great - without much additional complexity. > >> > >> Does all the needed detection + veto really pay off? How do you know you > >> are running in an environment which already has such a producer > registered? > >> This is not easy to accomplish! > >> > >> > >> Thus I'm for keeping it. > >> > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >________________________________ > >> > From: Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> > >> >To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org > >> >Sent: Saturday, 4 January 2014, 12:57 > >> >Subject: Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web? > >> > > >> > > >> >+1 for a veto in case of cdi 1.1. > >> > > >> >@external producers: > >> >we can document it (how users can veto e.g. producers, if they see any > >> >overlap). > >> >however, deltaspike shouldn't add complexity just because there might > be a > >> >custom producer (for the same). > >> > > >> >regards, > >> >gerhard > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >2014/1/4 Christian Kaltepoth <christ...@kaltepoth.de> > >> > > >> >> @John: Actually the Servlet module provides more than what CDI 1.1 > adds. > >> >> For example the event propagation and the recently added "WebStorage" > >> for > >> >> the resource loading and so on. So people may want to add the Servlet > >> >> module even in a CDI 1.1 container. > >> >> > >> >> I'm also +0 for that. Of cause it would be nice to get rid of @Web. > For > >> the > >> >> CDI 1.1 case we could actually veto our produces as Thomas suggested. > >> But > >> >> what about other portable extensions that may have producers for > >> @Default. > >> >> Say I'm using CDI 1.0 and also have Solder on the classpath. I think > >> Solder > >> >> is still a common dependency of some libraries, correct? In some > regard > >> it > >> >> is nice to have a custom "namespace" for the producers. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2014/1/3 Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> > >> >> > >> >> > Because our customers have different servers (tomcat7 and even 6, > >> >> > glassfish, jboss), so it would be a great enhancement for product > >> >> > development. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > 2014/1/3 John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > >> >> > > If you're in servlet 3.1/CDI 1.1 you don't even need the servlet > >> >> > > module (so why include it as a dependency?) > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > > -0 both injections can be different depending on containers > using > >> >> some > >> >> > > > advanced stuff out of ee but affecting ee lifecycle (at least > in > >> >> > tomcat) > >> >> > > > but your proposal sounds acceptable. > >> >> > > > Le 3 janv. 2014 17:58, "Thomas Andraschko" < > >> >> > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > a > >> >> > > > écrit : > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > >> Hi, > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> IMHO @Web is somehow annoying. > >> >> > > >> HttpServlet e.g. is always "web", so @Web is just a overhead > and > >> >> > doesn't > >> >> > > >> look nice. > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> Can't we just veto the producers if CDI1.1 is available? > >> >> > > >> The code would be the same with CDI 1.0 + DS, CDI 1.1 without > or > >> >> with > >> >> > > DS. > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> Regards, > >> >> > > >> Thomas > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Christian Kaltepoth > >> >> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/ > >> >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal > >> >> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> >
