so didnt get your comment on decorators... 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>: > @romain: > you should do the wrapping like you would do it without cdi anyway. > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> @gerhard: @Decorator is broken in 85% of the case and doesn't work >> with producers IIRC >> 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>: >> > @romain: >> > you can use e.g. @Decorator in such special cases or just do the wrapping >> > like you would without cdi. >> > >> > regards, >> > gerhard >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> > >> >> yes and no, depend what you do of it, the point is if you base your >> >> app on CDI (as much as possible I mean) and it starts to be common, >> >> you can put logic in these producers, typically wrapping of >> >> requests/responses (can be easier than using filters) and in this case >> >> this is often not 1-1 replacement. I know it is doable but needs to >> >> update the app and can break "big apps" where you aggregate multiple >> >> parts. >> >> >> >> Having a namespace should be a best practise IMHO. >> >> 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>: >> >> > @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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
