@Gerhard: hmm, @Managed neither in fact + the type is expressive,
qualifier is just a namespace 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 9:26 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>:
> @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