it was just one of several possibilities you have. in any case, the special case you mentioned is still easy enough -> there is no issue/blocker imo.
regards, gerhard 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > 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 > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >
