In the CDI 1.1 specs (3.7), there are only following beans defined:
HttpServletRequest
HttpSession
ServletContext

So if you are in a CDI 1.1 environment, it might be confusing because some
artifacts are available without @Web and some only with @Web.
I will open a vote about it because i can't see a reason to keep @Web



2014/1/5 Karl Kildén <karl.kil...@gmail.com>

> This is my summary:
>
> By following the discussion it seems to be seen as convenient vs
> inconvenient and the vote is kinda even. What I would like to see is
> cohesion in Deltaspike overall. Either you use namespaces or you don't. My
> point is basically that it feels more like a project-wide decision.
>
> To summarize, when a spec or w/e is expected to introduce the same producer
> different strategies can be used. So either the strategy as a user is to a)
> use the namespace and drop it when someone else provides it (i.e a spec) or
> b) Trust Deltaspike to handle any conflicts.
>
> pros:
> - No conflicts or conflict management.
> - Users can use both variants for example if Deltaspike offers extras.
> Apparently already true for Servlet Module.
> - Abolishes the idea of transparent replacement with the argument that
> various enhancements might make it incompatible anyways.
>
> cons:
> - Must remove namespace when Deltaspike is superfluous. No namespace and
> automatic veto would make it more seamless.
> - More verbose and not as pretty to use.
> - Does not see incompatibly as a big problem. Reasoning is:  End user must
> test application behavior after upgrade anyway and problems should be
> minor.
>
> Btw i'm +0
>
>
> On 4 January 2014 17:09, Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > to summarize it:
> > so far we haven't seen a real blocker for dropping the qualifier.
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
> >
> >
> >
> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > never said it was blocking, just it shouldn't be done blindly and docs
> > > should be very explicit on it and potential conflict (usually we don't
> > > care to not mention we don't use a qualifier, here we do).
> > > 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>:
> > > > 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
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to