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 it:
so far we haven't seen a real blocker for dropping the qualifier.
regards,
gerhard
2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau
> 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 menti
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://
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
> so didnt get your comment on decorators...
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog:
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 :
> @romain:
> you should do the wrapping like you would do
@romain:
you should do the wrapping like you would do it without cdi anyway.
regards,
gerhard
2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau
> @gerhard: @Decorator is broken in 85% of the case and doesn't work
> with producers IIRC
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpres
@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 :
> @romain:
>
@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
> 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 commo
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 replacemen
+1 Gerhard!
@romain
users can easily remove their own producers. It just takes 2 min to remove
this code, which is already available in DS then.
Maybe another qualifier would be better, too -> @DeltaSpike,
DeltaSpikeManaged etc.
I really don't like @Web as servlet objects are already related to w
@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
> well in fact I saw a lot of cdi 1.0 app producing http* objects
> without qualifier cause it wa
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:/
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-494?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Esteve closed DELTASPIKE-494.
-
Resolution: Not A Problem
Fix Version/s: 0.4
> Add support to templates in FacesMessages
> ---
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 w
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-494?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13862279#comment-13862279
]
Gerhard Petracek commented on DELTASPIKE-494:
-
please use JsfMessage
> Ad
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
+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
> @
@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 ni
18 matches
Mail list logo
