i'm talking about the bda-rules and their implementation in weld. furthermore, the majority of users would need to use an additional annotation without a real benefit. (+ they would need to enable the interceptor)
moreover, in case of dependent scoped beans an interceptor forces a proxy -> you get the proxy-overhead in addition. regards, gerhard 2014-09-14 16:14 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <[email protected]>: > Can you explain what weld specific issue you're referring to? > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:10 AM, 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 > > > > > >
