i'm ok with changing it, if we do it for both.
however, we would need a better name (imo without the project-name).
regards,
gerhard
2014-02-15 11:24 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>:
> I found another case were something like
> @DeltaSpike/@DeltaSpikeManaged/etc. would probably be a better name:
>
> @JsfPhaseListener public class MyPhaseListener implements PhaseListener {
> ... }
>
> It's the same as with @Web.
> We already know that it's an PhaseListener. So why name the annotation the
> same again?
> We also already know that a HttpServletRequest is something from the Web...
>
>
>
>
>
> 2014-01-07 17:44 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > 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
> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> >> > > >> >> >> >>
> >> > > >> >> >>
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
