Yes, this will get added to CDI-1.1.
But I personally expect CDI-1.1 only hit the street later that year. The main reason for this is that CDI-1.0 is pretty well written and usable already. Most of the changes are clarifications and wording corrections which are perfectly possible to implement without changing the API. Most of those changes already got implemented in the latest OWB and Weld versions. But things like the Context Control SPI changes are binary incompatible and can only be implemented later. By providing your very own Context you have it all under full control. I can help with the impl if you need some help. LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Emond Papegaaij <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 12:21 PM > Subject: Re: wicket-cdi > > Ok, now I understand what you mean. Will it stay this way, or are there plans > to add the the conversation SPI to the spec? I think I heard somewhere that > they were planning to add those parts to the CDI spec, making it possible to > use the conversation scope in a portable way. In that case, I'd rather leave > > it like it is now and move the to new SPI later on. Writing a custom > conversation scope for wicket seems like a lot of work for something that > already works fine with Seam. > > On Tuesday 17 April 2012 10:33:12 Mark Struberg wrote: >> The seam-conversation stuff only works with one of the n CDI containers: >> Weld. >> >> >> It will NOT work on Apache OpenWebBeans, Geronimo, WAS, TomEE, etc >> It will not even run on a few versions of GlassFish because they use a >> different Weld version. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> > From: Emond Papegaaij <[email protected]> >> > To: [email protected] >> > Cc: >> > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 11:21 AM >> > Subject: Re: wicket-cdi >> > >> >T hanks for the feedback! It's good that other people take a look > at this >> > >> > code >> > before we put it in Wicket. >> > >> > I don't understand the problem with @ConversationScoped. What do > you mean >> > with >> > non-portable? Portable to what? AFAIK the conversation scope is part > of >> > the >> > CDI spec and the current implementation in wicket-cdi works just fine, > at >> > least it does so for us. From what I understand we use it the way it >> > should be used. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Emond >> > >> > On Tuesday 17 April 2012 08:57:37 Mark Struberg wrote: >> >> A possible solution scenario: >> >> >> >> >> >> a.) write an own @WicketConversationScoped scope + Context >> >> implementation >> >> which especially fits wicket, supports your browser tab handling, >> >> conversation propagation etc. This will fully portable and you > have ALL >> >> the >> >> functionality fully in your own hands! >> >> >> >> >> >> b.) write a small extension which uses the @Observes >> >> ProcessAnnotatedType. >> >> In this Extension you can easily remove all cdi > @ConversationScoped >> >> annotations and replace them via your very own > @WicketConversation at >> >> container startup. Just modify the AnnotatedType as you need. >> >> >> >> The result is that a user can either use > @WicketConversationScoped or >> >> the >> >> CDI @ConversationScoped but both will be handled as your own > wicket >> >> conversations. >> >> >> >> You might also implement your own pendant to >> >> javax.enterprise.context.Conversation which is the interface to > control >> >> the >> >> conversation lifecycle from within an application. I don't > think that >> > >> > you >> > >> >> need to support the built-in Conversation control. The important > point >> >> is >> >> imo that people can reuse components which are annotated with >> >> @ConversationScoped. For them it would make no difference if the >> >> non-working CDI conversation or your own wicket conversation > Context >> >> implementation does the actual work underneath. >> >> >> >> >> >> LieGrue, >> >> strub >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> >> >> > From: Mark Struberg <[email protected]> >> >> > To: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> >> >> > Cc: >> >> > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:29 AM >> >> > Subject: Re: wicket-cdi >> >> > >> >> > Whoops, clicked send to quickly ^^ >> >> > >> >> > s/ >> >> > I try to get >> >> > / >> >> > >> >> > I try to get a push request done until the weekend. >> >> > / >> >> > >> >> > LieGrue, >> >> > strub >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> >> > >> >> >> From: Mark Struberg <[email protected]> >> >> >> To: "[email protected]" >> > >> > <[email protected]> >> > >> >> >> Cc: >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:18 AM >> >> >> Subject: wicket-cdi >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi folks! >> >> >> >> >> >> I've quickly checked the wicket-cdi project on > github and it >> > >> > looks like >> > >> >> > a >> >> > >> >> >> good start. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'd just change a few tiny bits >> >> >> >> >> >> 1.) use org.apache.geronimo.specs packages instead of > javax.* >> > >> > packages >> > >> >> > because >> >> > >> >> >> of license reasons >> >> >> >> >> >> 2.) drop the CDI conversation support. To be honest (as > a CDI EG >> > >> > member) >> > >> >> > The >> >> > >> >> >> built-in CDI Conversation is not that useful as it has > quite a >> > >> > few >> > >> >> >> flaws, >> >> >> >> >> > no >> >> > >> >> >> control api, etc. >> >> >> >> >> >> It might be better to introduce an own portable >> > >> > WicketConversation which >> > >> >> >> supports the wicket browser-tab handling. Having a > non-portable >> >> >> >> >> > conversation >> >> > >> >> >> support is imo a no-go. This will most probably not > even run on >> > >> > future >> > >> >> >> Weld >> >> >> >> >> >> containers... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 3.) Please add a profile for Apache OpenWebBeans as > well. Just to >> > >> > make >> > >> >> >> sure >> >> >> >> >> > your >> >> > >> >> >> project is really portable. >> >> >> >> >> >> I try to get >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> txs and LieGrue, >> >> >> strub >
