Makes sense - especially in the case of generic beans, and exposing "primitives" to the app from XML.
On 25 Aug 2010, at 11:35, Stuart Douglas wrote: > > No, it seems silly to force the user to create a class with a field solely so > they can then configure it via XML. It will be applied to an existing field > internally, but on a class that is part of the seam xml implementation. > > Stuart > > On 25/08/2010, at 8:33 PM, Pete Muir wrote: > >> >> On 25 Aug 2010, at 11:01, Stuart Douglas wrote: >> >>> >>> On 24/08/2010, at 9:16 PM, Pete Muir wrote: >>> >>>> Agreed, this would be very useful. >>>> >>>> The only (practical) issue I see is that Weld currently doesn't expect >>>> AnnotatedTtypes to be respected for EE-style injection (in some/all >>>> cases). I suspect that it should (nb. this is large a change in the >>>> container integration contract). >>>> >>>> On 24 Aug 2010, at 09:39, Stuart Douglas wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think that seam-xml needs to ability to programatically add resource >>>>> (and other) producer fields. My proposed syntax is: >>>>> >>>>> <s:EntityManager> >>>>> <s:producerField/> >>>>> <s:PersistenceContext unitName="customer" /> >>>>> <my:CustomerDatasource/> >>>>> </s:EntityManager> >>>>> >>>>> which would be equivalent to: >>>>> >>>>> @Produces >>>>> @PersistenceContext(unitName="main") >>>>> @CustomerDatasource >>>>> EntityManager entityManager; >>>>> >>>>> This will also support other types of producer fields, such as weld >>>>> extension generic bean producer fields and primitives: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <s:String> >>>>> <s:producerField/> >>>>> <my:ApplicationVersion /> >>>>> <s:value>3.0.0.GA</s:value> >>>>> </s:String> >>>> >>>> I think it should be: >>>> >>>> <ee:EntityManager> >>>> <ee:Produces /> >>>> <ee:PersistenceContext unitName="customer" /> >>>> <my:CustomerDatasource/> >>>> </ee:EntityManager> >>>> >>>> What was the reason for introducing the special producerField keyword? >>> >>> It was to distinguish these from normal bean declarations, however >>> @Produces will never be applied directly to a bean class, so that should be >>> enough. >> >> Ah, so you aren't applying this to an existing field? > _______________________________________________ seam-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
