@romain: maybe not @Managed (it was just @DeltaSpikeManaged without the project-name), but @ManagedResource is at least more expressive than the project-name itself. (that it's managed by ds is clear due to the package-name imo)
regards, gerhard 2014-02-18 9:30 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > @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 > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >
