@romain: the point is that it isn't expressive at all...

regards,
gerhard



2014-02-18 9:20 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>:

> Project name should be fine now, if not all pakcages will change so
> same impact than annotation name
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
>
> 2014-02-18 9:18 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>:
> > I like @DeltaSpike but as gerhard said, maybe it's better to use one
> > without the project name in it? On the other side, DeltaSpike is the
> final
> > name...
> >
> > Maybe @ExtensionManaged?
> >
> >
> > 2014-02-18 8:54 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> @Gerhard: loos too much to existing JMX APIs + managed doesn't mean
> >> anything anymore today IMO
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2014-02-18 8:32 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
> >:
> >> > @thomas:
> >> > maybe something like @Managed or @ManagedResource
> >> >
> >> > regards,
> >> > gerhard
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2014-02-18 7:17 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
> >> >
> >> >> @DeltaSpike?
> >> >> Le 18 févr. 2014 06:26, "Christian Kaltepoth" <
> christ...@kaltepoth.de>
> >> a
> >> >> écrit :
> >> >>
> >> >> > @Thomas: I also like the idea of a global qualifier like this.
> That's
> >> >> > something I was already looking for when I created @Web back then.
> But
> >> >> the
> >> >> > most difficult question is what the name should be. Unfortunately
> >> I've no
> >> >> > really good idea.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2014-02-15 15:26 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
> >> >> > >:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > +1
> >> >> > > Any ideas about the name gerhard?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Any veto about such a change?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 2014-02-15 11:29 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <
> >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
> >> >> > >:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > 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
> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > > >> > > >>
> >> >> > > > > >> > >
> >> >> > > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Christian Kaltepoth
> >> >> > Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> >> >> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> >> >> > GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
>

Reply via email to