Hrrmm I have not used the scheduler, but it looks like you don't really start scopes in the docs? For test-control it feels pretty natural the way it is now imo. No idea about the Servlet Listener, what module / feature is that?
On 10 September 2014 10:10, Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> wrote: > #1 > the test-module supports execution without scope-handling already and for > the scheduler module you added it yourself. > -> i'm not sure about your issue here... > > #2 > if you suggest a cdi-interceptor, then i don't agree at all -> -1 because > it leads to an extra config step (at least for weld-users) and imo there is > no real benefit which justifies it. > even encapsulating the logic in helper/util classes won't improve a lot for > the existing use-cases, because the common parts aren't that huge. > > e.g. > in case of the schedule module you start scopes per scheduler-job. > in case of the test-module you can start scopes per test-method or a whole > test-class (more exotic, but sometimes needed e.g. to fill read-only caches > just once per test-class). > > however, if you have an approach which keeps the flexibility without > introducing an additional config-step (per default), i would be happy to > see a prototype (based on [1]). > > regards, > gerhard > > [1] > > http://deltaspike.apache.org/suggested-git-workflows.html#discussion-workflow-optional > > > > 2014-09-10 2:42 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[email protected]>: > > > Hi all, > > > > I was looking through our code base and I noticed one interesting theme - > > currently we have several different ways to annotate methods to cause > > scopes to start - namely scheduler and TestControl; as well as a sevlet > > listener (my fault). i was wondering if it makes more sense to add a > > capability to CdiCtrl to start a scope, via annotation, and remove > > (deprecate) from the other modules? I was thinking it would also help in > > case you want to use these features without starting scopes. > > > > WDYT? > > > > John > > >
