Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
I like @DeltaSpike but as gerhard said, maybe it's better to use one
without the project name in it? On the other side, DeltaSpike is the final
name...
Maybe @ExtensionManaged?
2014-02-18 8:54 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
> @Gerhard: loos too much to existing JMX APIs + managed doesn't mean
> anything anymore today IMO
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
>
> 2014-02-18 8:32 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek :
> > @thomas:
> > maybe something like @Managed or @ManagedResource
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
> >
> >
> >
> > 2014-02-18 7:17 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
> >
> >> @DeltaSpike?
> >> Le 18 févr. 2014 06:26, "Christian Kaltepoth"
> a
> >> écrit :
> >>
> >> > @Thomas: I also like the idea of a global qualifier like this. That's
> >> > something I was already looking for when I created @Web back then. But
> >> the
> >> > most difficult question is what the name should be. Unfortunately
> I've no
> >> > really good idea.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2014-02-15 15:26 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
> >> > >:
> >> >
> >> > > +1
> >> > > Any ideas about the name gerhard?
> >> > >
> >> > > Any veto about such a change?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 2014-02-15 11:29 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <
> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
> >> > >:
> >> > >
> >> > > > i'm ok with changing it, if we do it for both.
> >> > > > however, we would need a better name (imo without the
> project-name).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > regards,
> >> > > > gerhard
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 2014-02-15 11:24 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> >> > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
> >> > > > >:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > I found another case were something like
> >> > > > > @DeltaSpike/@DeltaSpikeManaged/etc. would probably be a better
> >> name:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > @JsfPhaseListener public class MyPhaseListener implements
> >> > > PhaseListener {
> >> > > > > ... }
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > It's the same as with @Web.
> >> > > > > We already know that it's an PhaseListener. So why name the
> >> > annotation
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > same again?
> >> > > > > We also already know that a HttpServletRequest is something from
> >> the
> >> > > > Web...
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > 2014-01-07 17:44 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> >> > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
> >> > > > > >:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > In the CDI 1.1 specs (3.7), there are only following beans
> >> defined:
> >> > > > > > HttpServletRequest
> >> > > > > > HttpSession
> >> > > > > > ServletContext
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > So if you are in a CDI 1.1 environment, it might be confusing
> >> > because
> >> > > > > some
> >> > > > > > artifacts are available without @Web and some only with @Web.
> >> > > > > > I will open a vote about it because i can't see a reason to
> keep
> >> > @Web
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > 2014/1/5 Karl Kildén
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> 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, when a spec or w/e is expected to introduce the
> >> same
> >> > > > > >> producer
> >> > > > > >> different strategies can be used. So either the strategy as a
> >> user
> >> > > is
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > >> a)
> >> > > > > >> use the namespace and drop it when someone else provides it
> >> (i.e a
> >> > > > spec)
> >> > > > > >> or
> >> > > > > >> b) Trust Deltaspike to handle any conflicts.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> pros:
> >> > > > > >> - No conflicts or conflict management.
> >> > > > > >> - Users can use both variants for example if Deltaspike
> offers
> >> > > extras.
> >> > > > > >> Apparently already true for Servlet Module.
> >> > > > > >> - Abolishes the idea of transparent replacement with the
> >> argument
> >> > > that
> >> > > > > >> various enhancements might make it incompatible anyways.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> cons:
> >> > > > > >> - Must remove namespace when Deltaspike is superfluous. No
> >> > namespace
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > >> automatic veto would make it more seamless.
> >> > > > > >> - More verbose and not as pretty to use.
> >> > > > > >> - Does not see incompatibly as a big problem. Reasoning is:
> End
> >> > > user
> >> > > > > must
> >> > > > > >> test application behavior after upgrade anyway and problems
> >> should
> >> > > be
> >> > > > > >> minor.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> Btw i'm +0
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > >
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
Project name should be fine now, if not all pakcages will change so
same impact than annotation name
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-02-18 9:18 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko :
> I like @DeltaSpike but as gerhard said, maybe it's better to use one
> without the project name in it? On the other side, DeltaSpike is the final
> name...
>
> Maybe @ExtensionManaged?
>
>
> 2014-02-18 8:54 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
>
>> @Gerhard: loos too much to existing JMX APIs + managed doesn't mean
>> anything anymore today IMO
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-02-18 8:32 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek :
>> > @thomas:
>> > maybe something like @Managed or @ManagedResource
>> >
>> > regards,
>> > gerhard
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2014-02-18 7:17 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
>> >
>> >> @DeltaSpike?
>> >> Le 18 févr. 2014 06:26, "Christian Kaltepoth"
>> a
>> >> écrit :
>> >>
>> >> > @Thomas: I also like the idea of a global qualifier like this. That's
>> >> > something I was already looking for when I created @Web back then. But
>> >> the
>> >> > most difficult question is what the name should be. Unfortunately
>> I've no
>> >> > really good idea.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 2014-02-15 15:26 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
>> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
>> >> > >:
>> >> >
>> >> > > +1
>> >> > > Any ideas about the name gerhard?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Any veto about such a change?
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 2014-02-15 11:29 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <
>> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
>> >> > >:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > i'm ok with changing it, if we do it for both.
>> >> > > > however, we would need a better name (imo without the
>> project-name).
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > regards,
>> >> > > > gerhard
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > 2014-02-15 11:24 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
>> >> > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
>> >> > > > >:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > I found another case were something like
>> >> > > > > @DeltaSpike/@DeltaSpikeManaged/etc. would probably be a better
>> >> name:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > @JsfPhaseListener public class MyPhaseListener implements
>> >> > > PhaseListener {
>> >> > > > > ... }
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > It's the same as with @Web.
>> >> > > > > We already know that it's an PhaseListener. So why name the
>> >> > annotation
>> >> > > > the
>> >> > > > > same again?
>> >> > > > > We also already know that a HttpServletRequest is something from
>> >> the
>> >> > > > Web...
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > 2014-01-07 17:44 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
>> >> > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
>> >> > > > > >:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > In the CDI 1.1 specs (3.7), there are only following beans
>> >> defined:
>> >> > > > > > HttpServletRequest
>> >> > > > > > HttpSession
>> >> > > > > > ServletContext
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > So if you are in a CDI 1.1 environment, it might be confusing
>> >> > because
>> >> > > > > some
>> >> > > > > > artifacts are available without @Web and some only with @Web.
>> >> > > > > > I will open a vote about it because i can't see a reason to
>> keep
>> >> > @Web
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > 2014/1/5 Karl Kildén
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >> 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, when a spec or w/e is expected to introduce the
>> >> same
>> >> > > > > >> producer
>> >> > > > > >> different strategies can be used. So either the strategy as a
>> >> user
>> >> > > is
>> >> > > > to
>> >> > > > > >> a)
>> >> > > > > >> use the namespace and drop it when someone else provides it
>> >> (i.e a
>> >> > > > spec)
>> >> > > > > >> or
>> >> > > > > >> b) Trust Deltaspike to handle any conflicts.
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> pros:
>> >> > > > > >> - No conflicts or conflict management.
>> >> > > > > >> - Users can use both variants for example if Deltaspike
>> offers
>> >> > > extras.
>> >> > > > > >> Apparently already true for Servlet Module.
>> >> > > > > >> - Abolishes the idea of transparent replacement with the
>> >> argument
>> >> > > that
>> >> > > > > >> various enhancements might make it incompatible anyways.
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> cons:
>> >> > > > > >> - Must remove namespace when Deltaspike
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
@romain: the point is that it isn't expressive at all...
regards,
gerhard
2014-02-18 9:20 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
> Project name should be fine now, if not all pakcages will change so
> same impact than annotation name
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
>
> 2014-02-18 9:18 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko :
> > I like @DeltaSpike but as gerhard said, maybe it's better to use one
> > without the project name in it? On the other side, DeltaSpike is the
> final
> > name...
> >
> > Maybe @ExtensionManaged?
> >
> >
> > 2014-02-18 8:54 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
> >
> >> @Gerhard: loos too much to existing JMX APIs + managed doesn't mean
> >> anything anymore today IMO
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2014-02-18 8:32 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek >:
> >> > @thomas:
> >> > maybe something like @Managed or @ManagedResource
> >> >
> >> > regards,
> >> > gerhard
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2014-02-18 7:17 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
> >> >
> >> >> @DeltaSpike?
> >> >> Le 18 févr. 2014 06:26, "Christian Kaltepoth" <
> christ...@kaltepoth.de>
> >> a
> >> >> écrit :
> >> >>
> >> >> > @Thomas: I also like the idea of a global qualifier like this.
> That's
> >> >> > something I was already looking for when I created @Web back then.
> But
> >> >> the
> >> >> > most difficult question is what the name should be. Unfortunately
> >> I've no
> >> >> > really good idea.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2014-02-15 15:26 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
> >> >> > >:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > +1
> >> >> > > Any ideas about the name gerhard?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Any veto about such a change?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 2014-02-15 11:29 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <
> >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
> >> >> > >:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > i'm ok with changing it, if we do it for both.
> >> >> > > > however, we would need a better name (imo without the
> >> project-name).
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > regards,
> >> >> > > > gerhard
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > 2014-02-15 11:24 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> >> >> > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
> >> >> > > > >:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > > I found another case were something like
> >> >> > > > > @DeltaSpike/@DeltaSpikeManaged/etc. would probably be a
> better
> >> >> name:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > @JsfPhaseListener public class MyPhaseListener implements
> >> >> > > PhaseListener {
> >> >> > > > > ... }
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > It's the same as with @Web.
> >> >> > > > > We already know that it's an PhaseListener. So why name the
> >> >> > annotation
> >> >> > > > the
> >> >> > > > > same again?
> >> >> > > > > We also already know that a HttpServletRequest is something
> from
> >> >> the
> >> >> > > > Web...
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > 2014-01-07 17:44 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> >> >> > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
> >> >> > > > > >:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > In the CDI 1.1 specs (3.7), there are only following beans
> >> >> defined:
> >> >> > > > > > HttpServletRequest
> >> >> > > > > > HttpSession
> >> >> > > > > > ServletContext
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > So if you are in a CDI 1.1 environment, it might be
> confusing
> >> >> > because
> >> >> > > > > some
> >> >> > > > > > artifacts are available without @Web and some only with
> @Web.
> >> >> > > > > > I will open a vote about it because i can't see a reason to
> >> keep
> >> >> > @Web
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > 2014/1/5 Karl Kildén
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >> 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, when a spec or w/e is expected to introduce
> the
> >> >> same
> >> >> > > > > >> producer
> >> >> > > > > >> different strategies can be used. So either the strategy
> as a
> >> >> user
> >> >> > > is
> >> >> > > > to
> >> >> > > > > >> a)
> >> >> > > > > >> use the namespace and drop it when someone else provides
> it
> >> >> (i.e a
> >> >> > > > spec)
> >> >> > > > > >> or
> >> >> > > > > >> b) Trust Deltaspike to handle any conflicts.
> >> >> > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > >> pros:
> >> >
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
Thats right gerhard but from this perspective, isn't @DeltaSpikeManaged the
best?
2014-02-18 9:26 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek :
> @romain: the point is that it isn't expressive at all...
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2014-02-18 9:20 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
>
> > Project name should be fine now, if not all pakcages will change so
> > same impact than annotation name
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > Twitter: @rmannibucau
> > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> >
> >
> >
> > 2014-02-18 9:18 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko >:
> > > I like @DeltaSpike but as gerhard said, maybe it's better to use one
> > > without the project name in it? On the other side, DeltaSpike is the
> > final
> > > name...
> > >
> > > Maybe @ExtensionManaged?
> > >
> > >
> > > 2014-02-18 8:54 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
> > >
> > >> @Gerhard: loos too much to existing JMX APIs + managed doesn't mean
> > >> anything anymore today IMO
> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2014-02-18 8:32 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <
> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
> > >:
> > >> > @thomas:
> > >> > maybe something like @Managed or @ManagedResource
> > >> >
> > >> > regards,
> > >> > gerhard
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > 2014-02-18 7:17 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau >:
> > >> >
> > >> >> @DeltaSpike?
> > >> >> Le 18 févr. 2014 06:26, "Christian Kaltepoth" <
> > christ...@kaltepoth.de>
> > >> a
> > >> >> écrit :
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > @Thomas: I also like the idea of a global qualifier like this.
> > That's
> > >> >> > something I was already looking for when I created @Web back
> then.
> > But
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > most difficult question is what the name should be. Unfortunately
> > >> I've no
> > >> >> > really good idea.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > 2014-02-15 15:26 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> > >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
> > >> >> > >:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > +1
> > >> >> > > Any ideas about the name gerhard?
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Any veto about such a change?
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > 2014-02-15 11:29 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <
> > >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
> > >> >> > >:
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > i'm ok with changing it, if we do it for both.
> > >> >> > > > however, we would need a better name (imo without the
> > >> project-name).
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > regards,
> > >> >> > > > gerhard
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > 2014-02-15 11:24 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> > >> >> > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
> > >> >> > > > >:
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > I found another case were something like
> > >> >> > > > > @DeltaSpike/@DeltaSpikeManaged/etc. would probably be a
> > better
> > >> >> name:
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > @JsfPhaseListener public class MyPhaseListener implements
> > >> >> > > PhaseListener {
> > >> >> > > > > ... }
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > It's the same as with @Web.
> > >> >> > > > > We already know that it's an PhaseListener. So why name the
> > >> >> > annotation
> > >> >> > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > same again?
> > >> >> > > > > We also already know that a HttpServletRequest is something
> > from
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > > > Web...
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > 2014-01-07 17:44 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> > >> >> > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
> > >> >> > > > > >:
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > In the CDI 1.1 specs (3.7), there are only following
> beans
> > >> >> defined:
> > >> >> > > > > > HttpServletRequest
> > >> >> > > > > > HttpSession
> > >> >> > > > > > ServletContext
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > So if you are in a CDI 1.1 environment, it might be
> > confusing
> > >> >> > because
> > >> >> > > > > some
> > >> >> > > > > > artifacts are available without @Web and some only with
> > @Web.
> > >> >> > > > > > I will open a vote about it because i can't see a reason
> to
> > >> keep
> > >> >> > @Web
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > 2014/1/5 Karl Kildén
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > >> 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,
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
@Gerhard: hmm, @Managed neither in fact + the type is expressive,
qualifier is just a namespace IMO
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-02-18 9:26 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek :
> @romain: the point is that it isn't expressive at all...
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2014-02-18 9:20 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
>
>> Project name should be fine now, if not all pakcages will change so
>> same impact than annotation name
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-02-18 9:18 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko :
>> > I like @DeltaSpike but as gerhard said, maybe it's better to use one
>> > without the project name in it? On the other side, DeltaSpike is the
>> final
>> > name...
>> >
>> > Maybe @ExtensionManaged?
>> >
>> >
>> > 2014-02-18 8:54 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
>> >
>> >> @Gerhard: loos too much to existing JMX APIs + managed doesn't mean
>> >> anything anymore today IMO
>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2014-02-18 8:32 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek > >:
>> >> > @thomas:
>> >> > maybe something like @Managed or @ManagedResource
>> >> >
>> >> > regards,
>> >> > gerhard
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 2014-02-18 7:17 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
>> >> >
>> >> >> @DeltaSpike?
>> >> >> Le 18 févr. 2014 06:26, "Christian Kaltepoth" <
>> christ...@kaltepoth.de>
>> >> a
>> >> >> écrit :
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > @Thomas: I also like the idea of a global qualifier like this.
>> That's
>> >> >> > something I was already looking for when I created @Web back then.
>> But
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> > most difficult question is what the name should be. Unfortunately
>> >> I've no
>> >> >> > really good idea.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 2014-02-15 15:26 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
>> >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
>> >> >> > >:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > +1
>> >> >> > > Any ideas about the name gerhard?
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Any veto about such a change?
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > 2014-02-15 11:29 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <
>> >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
>> >> >> > >:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > > i'm ok with changing it, if we do it for both.
>> >> >> > > > however, we would need a better name (imo without the
>> >> project-name).
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > regards,
>> >> >> > > > gerhard
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > 2014-02-15 11:24 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
>> >> >> > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
>> >> >> > > > >:
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > > I found another case were something like
>> >> >> > > > > @DeltaSpike/@DeltaSpikeManaged/etc. would probably be a
>> better
>> >> >> name:
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > @JsfPhaseListener public class MyPhaseListener implements
>> >> >> > > PhaseListener {
>> >> >> > > > > ... }
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > It's the same as with @Web.
>> >> >> > > > > We already know that it's an PhaseListener. So why name the
>> >> >> > annotation
>> >> >> > > > the
>> >> >> > > > > same again?
>> >> >> > > > > We also already know that a HttpServletRequest is something
>> from
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> > > > Web...
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > 2014-01-07 17:44 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
>> >> >> > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
>> >> >> > > > > >:
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > In the CDI 1.1 specs (3.7), there are only following beans
>> >> >> defined:
>> >> >> > > > > > HttpServletRequest
>> >> >> > > > > > HttpSession
>> >> >> > > > > > ServletContext
>> >> >> > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > So if you are in a CDI 1.1 environment, it might be
>> confusing
>> >> >> > because
>> >> >> > > > > some
>> >> >> > > > > > artifacts are available without @Web and some only with
>> @Web.
>> >> >> > > > > > I will open a vote about it because i can't see a reason to
>> >> keep
>> >> >> > @Web
>> >> >> > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > 2014/1/5 Karl Kildén
>> >> >> > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > >> 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, when a spec
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
@romain:
maybe not @Managed (it was just @DeltaSpikeManaged without the
project-name), but @ManagedResource is at least more expressive than the
project-name itself.
(that it's managed by ds is clear due to the package-name imo)
regards,
gerhard
2014-02-18 9:30 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
> @Gerhard: hmm, @Managed neither in fact + the type is expressive,
> qualifier is just a namespace IMO
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
>
> 2014-02-18 9:26 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek :
> > @romain: the point is that it isn't expressive at all...
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
> >
> >
> >
> > 2014-02-18 9:20 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
> >
> >> Project name should be fine now, if not all pakcages will change so
> >> same impact than annotation name
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2014-02-18 9:18 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>:
> >> > I like @DeltaSpike but as gerhard said, maybe it's better to use one
> >> > without the project name in it? On the other side, DeltaSpike is the
> >> final
> >> > name...
> >> >
> >> > Maybe @ExtensionManaged?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2014-02-18 8:54 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
> >> >
> >> >> @Gerhard: loos too much to existing JMX APIs + managed doesn't mean
> >> >> anything anymore today IMO
> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 2014-02-18 8:32 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <
> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
> >> >:
> >> >> > @thomas:
> >> >> > maybe something like @Managed or @ManagedResource
> >> >> >
> >> >> > regards,
> >> >> > gerhard
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2014-02-18 7:17 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> @DeltaSpike?
> >> >> >> Le 18 févr. 2014 06:26, "Christian Kaltepoth" <
> >> christ...@kaltepoth.de>
> >> >> a
> >> >> >> écrit :
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > @Thomas: I also like the idea of a global qualifier like this.
> >> That's
> >> >> >> > something I was already looking for when I created @Web back
> then.
> >> But
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> > most difficult question is what the name should be.
> Unfortunately
> >> >> I've no
> >> >> >> > really good idea.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > 2014-02-15 15:26 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> >> >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> > >:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > +1
> >> >> >> > > Any ideas about the name gerhard?
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Any veto about such a change?
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > 2014-02-15 11:29 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <
> >> >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> > >:
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > > i'm ok with changing it, if we do it for both.
> >> >> >> > > > however, we would need a better name (imo without the
> >> >> project-name).
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > regards,
> >> >> >> > > > gerhard
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > 2014-02-15 11:24 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> >> >> >> > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> > > > >:
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > I found another case were something like
> >> >> >> > > > > @DeltaSpike/@DeltaSpikeManaged/etc. would probably be a
> >> better
> >> >> >> name:
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > @JsfPhaseListener public class MyPhaseListener implements
> >> >> >> > > PhaseListener {
> >> >> >> > > > > ... }
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > It's the same as with @Web.
> >> >> >> > > > > We already know that it's an PhaseListener. So why name
> the
> >> >> >> > annotation
> >> >> >> > > > the
> >> >> >> > > > > same again?
> >> >> >> > > > > We also already know that a HttpServletRequest is
> something
> >> from
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> > > > Web...
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > 2014-01-07 17:44 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> >> >> >> > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> > > > > >:
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > In the CDI 1.1 specs (3.7), there are only following
> beans
> >> >> >> defined:
> >> >> >> > > > > > HttpServletRequest
> >> >> >> > > > > > HttpSession
> >> >> >> > > > > > ServletContext
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > So if you are in a CDI 1.1 environment, it might be
> >> confusing
> >> >> >> > because
> >> >> >> > > > > some
> >> >> >> > > > > > artifacts are available without @Web and some only with
> >> @Web.
> >> >> >> > > > > > I will open a vote about it because i can't see a
> reason to
> >> >> keep
>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
well managedresource looks really like a jmx stuff for me and since it
uses cdi managed is quite obvious. That's why i thought the project
name would fit and make the origin obvious.
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-02-18 9:51 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek :
> @romain:
> maybe not @Managed (it was just @DeltaSpikeManaged without the
> project-name), but @ManagedResource is at least more expressive than the
> project-name itself.
> (that it's managed by ds is clear due to the package-name imo)
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2014-02-18 9:30 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
>
>> @Gerhard: hmm, @Managed neither in fact + the type is expressive,
>> qualifier is just a namespace IMO
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-02-18 9:26 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek :
>> > @romain: the point is that it isn't expressive at all...
>> >
>> > regards,
>> > gerhard
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2014-02-18 9:20 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
>> >
>> >> Project name should be fine now, if not all pakcages will change so
>> >> same impact than annotation name
>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2014-02-18 9:18 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
>> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>:
>> >> > I like @DeltaSpike but as gerhard said, maybe it's better to use one
>> >> > without the project name in it? On the other side, DeltaSpike is the
>> >> final
>> >> > name...
>> >> >
>> >> > Maybe @ExtensionManaged?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 2014-02-18 8:54 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
>> >> >
>> >> >> @Gerhard: loos too much to existing JMX APIs + managed doesn't mean
>> >> >> anything anymore today IMO
>> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2014-02-18 8:32 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <
>> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
>> >> >:
>> >> >> > @thomas:
>> >> >> > maybe something like @Managed or @ManagedResource
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > regards,
>> >> >> > gerhard
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 2014-02-18 7:17 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> @DeltaSpike?
>> >> >> >> Le 18 févr. 2014 06:26, "Christian Kaltepoth" <
>> >> christ...@kaltepoth.de>
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> >> écrit :
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > @Thomas: I also like the idea of a global qualifier like this.
>> >> That's
>> >> >> >> > something I was already looking for when I created @Web back
>> then.
>> >> But
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> > most difficult question is what the name should be.
>> Unfortunately
>> >> >> I've no
>> >> >> >> > really good idea.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > 2014-02-15 15:26 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
>> >> >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
>> >> >> >> > >:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > > +1
>> >> >> >> > > Any ideas about the name gerhard?
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > Any veto about such a change?
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > 2014-02-15 11:29 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <
>> >> >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
>> >> >> >> > >:
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > > i'm ok with changing it, if we do it for both.
>> >> >> >> > > > however, we would need a better name (imo without the
>> >> >> project-name).
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > regards,
>> >> >> >> > > > gerhard
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > 2014-02-15 11:24 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
>> >> >> >> > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
>> >> >> >> > > > >:
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > > I found another case were something like
>> >> >> >> > > > > @DeltaSpike/@DeltaSpikeManaged/etc. would probably be a
>> >> better
>> >> >> >> name:
>> >> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > > @JsfPhaseListener public class MyPhaseListener implements
>> >> >> >> > > PhaseListener {
>> >> >> >> > > > > ... }
>> >> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > > It's the same as with @Web.
>> >> >> >> > > > > We already know that it's an PhaseListener. So why name
>> the
>> >> >> >> > annotation
>> >> >> >> > > > the
>> >> >> >> > > > > same again?
>> >> >> >> > > > > We also already know that a HttpServletRequest is
>> something
>> >> from
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> > > > Web...
>> >> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> >> > > > > 2014-01-07 17:44 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
>> >> >> >> > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
>> >> >> >> > > > > >:
>> >> >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
@romain:
you will always have same/similar terms in different areas (see e.g.
"message").
regards,
gerhard
2014-02-18 10:08 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
> well managedresource looks really like a jmx stuff for me and since it
> uses cdi managed is quite obvious. That's why i thought the project
> name would fit and make the origin obvious.
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
>
> 2014-02-18 9:51 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek :
> > @romain:
> > maybe not @Managed (it was just @DeltaSpikeManaged without the
> > project-name), but @ManagedResource is at least more expressive than the
> > project-name itself.
> > (that it's managed by ds is clear due to the package-name imo)
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
> >
> >
> >
> > 2014-02-18 9:30 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
> >
> >> @Gerhard: hmm, @Managed neither in fact + the type is expressive,
> >> qualifier is just a namespace IMO
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2014-02-18 9:26 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek >:
> >> > @romain: the point is that it isn't expressive at all...
> >> >
> >> > regards,
> >> > gerhard
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2014-02-18 9:20 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
> >> >
> >> >> Project name should be fine now, if not all pakcages will change so
> >> >> same impact than annotation name
> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 2014-02-18 9:18 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>:
> >> >> > I like @DeltaSpike but as gerhard said, maybe it's better to use
> one
> >> >> > without the project name in it? On the other side, DeltaSpike is
> the
> >> >> final
> >> >> > name...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Maybe @ExtensionManaged?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2014-02-18 8:54 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> @Gerhard: loos too much to existing JMX APIs + managed doesn't
> mean
> >> >> >> anything anymore today IMO
> >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 2014-02-18 8:32 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <
> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
> >> >> >:
> >> >> >> > @thomas:
> >> >> >> > maybe something like @Managed or @ManagedResource
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > regards,
> >> >> >> > gerhard
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > 2014-02-18 7:17 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> @DeltaSpike?
> >> >> >> >> Le 18 févr. 2014 06:26, "Christian Kaltepoth" <
> >> >> christ...@kaltepoth.de>
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> >> écrit :
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > @Thomas: I also like the idea of a global qualifier like
> this.
> >> >> That's
> >> >> >> >> > something I was already looking for when I created @Web back
> >> then.
> >> >> But
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> > most difficult question is what the name should be.
> >> Unfortunately
> >> >> >> I've no
> >> >> >> >> > really good idea.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > 2014-02-15 15:26 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> >> >> >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> >> > >:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > > +1
> >> >> >> >> > > Any ideas about the name gerhard?
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > > Any veto about such a change?
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > > 2014-02-15 11:29 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <
> >> >> >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> >> > >:
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > > > i'm ok with changing it, if we do it for both.
> >> >> >> >> > > > however, we would need a better name (imo without the
> >> >> >> project-name).
> >> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> > > > regards,
> >> >> >> >> > > > gerhard
> >> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> > > > 2014-02-15 11:24 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <
> >> >> >> >> > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> >> > > > >:
> >> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> > > > > I found another case were something like
> >> >> >> >> > > > > @DeltaSpike/@DeltaSpikeManaged/etc. would probably be a
> >> >> better
> >> >> >> >> name:
> >> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> >> > > > > @JsfPhaseListener public class MyPhaseListener
> implements
> >> >> >> >> > > PhaseListener {
> >> >> >> >> > > > > ... }
> >> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> >> > > > > It's the same as with @Web.
> >> >> >> >> > > > > We already know that it's an
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
@Gerhard: yeah but managed is not expressive, doesnt give the origin + is quite standard for jmxso i would avoid it. That said it doesnt bring any feature so i dont want to fight for a name. Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-02-18 10:12 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > @romain: > you will always have same/similar terms in different areas (see e.g. > "message"). > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2014-02-18 10:08 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > >> well managedresource looks really like a jmx stuff for me and since it >> uses cdi managed is quite obvious. That's why i thought the project >> name would fit and make the origin obvious. >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> 2014-02-18 9:51 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : >> > @romain: >> > maybe not @Managed (it was just @DeltaSpikeManaged without the >> > project-name), but @ManagedResource is at least more expressive than the >> > project-name itself. >> > (that it's managed by ds is clear due to the package-name imo) >> > >> > regards, >> > gerhard >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-18 9:30 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : >> > >> >> @Gerhard: hmm, @Managed neither in fact + the type is expressive, >> >> qualifier is just a namespace IMO >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-02-18 9:26 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek > >: >> >> > @romain: the point is that it isn't expressive at all... >> >> > >> >> > regards, >> >> > gerhard >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > 2014-02-18 9:20 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : >> >> > >> >> >> Project name should be fine now, if not all pakcages will change so >> >> >> same impact than annotation name >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-02-18 9:18 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> > I like @DeltaSpike but as gerhard said, maybe it's better to use >> one >> >> >> > without the project name in it? On the other side, DeltaSpike is >> the >> >> >> final >> >> >> > name... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Maybe @ExtensionManaged? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 2014-02-18 8:54 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> @Gerhard: loos too much to existing JMX APIs + managed doesn't >> mean >> >> >> >> anything anymore today IMO >> >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-02-18 8:32 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> >> >: >> >> >> >> > @thomas: >> >> >> >> > maybe something like @Managed or @ManagedResource >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > regards, >> >> >> >> > gerhard >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > 2014-02-18 7:17 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> @DeltaSpike? >> >> >> >> >> Le 18 févr. 2014 06:26, "Christian Kaltepoth" < >> >> >> christ...@kaltepoth.de> >> >> >> >> a >> >> >> >> >> écrit : >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > @Thomas: I also like the idea of a global qualifier like >> this. >> >> >> That's >> >> >> >> >> > something I was already looking for when I created @Web back >> >> then. >> >> >> But >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> > most difficult question is what the name should be. >> >> Unfortunately >> >> >> >> I've no >> >> >> >> >> > really good idea. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > 2014-02-15 15:26 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> >> >> >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> > >: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > +1 >> >> >> >> >> > > Any ideas about the name gerhard? >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > Any veto about such a change? >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > 2014-02-15 11:29 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < >> >> >> >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> > >: >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > i'm ok with changing it, if we do it for both. >> >> >> >> >> > > > however, we would need a better name (imo without the >> >> >> >> project-name). >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > regards, >> >> >> >> >> > > > gerhard >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > 2014-02-15 11:24 GMT+01:00 Thomas
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
I do agree on @Managed not being very expressive. Think about the @ManagedBean disaster in JavaEE itself. 'Managed' is in the same ballpark like 'Class' or 'Object'. Managed by whom and what? In that case I'd rather go with @DeltaSpike or keep @Web... But I do not care that much about names... LieGrue, strub On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 10:15, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: @Gerhard: yeah but managed is not expressive, doesnt give the origin + >is quite standard for jmxso i would avoid it. That said it doesnt >bring any feature so i dont want to fight for a name. >Romain Manni-Bucau >Twitter: @rmannibucau >Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > >2014-02-18 10:12 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : >> @romain: >> you will always have same/similar terms in different areas (see e.g. >> "message"). >> >> regards, >> gerhard >> >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
we haven't seen a nice name so far -> i would keep what we have right now (it's redundant, but at least a bit more expressive). regards, gerhard 2014-02-18 10:20 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > I do agree on @Managed not being very expressive. Think about the > @ManagedBean disaster in JavaEE itself. 'Managed' is in the same ballpark > like 'Class' or 'Object'. > > Managed by whom and what? > In that case I'd rather go with @DeltaSpike or keep @Web... > But I do not care that much about names... > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 10:15, Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > @Gerhard: yeah but managed is not expressive, doesnt give the origin + > >is quite standard for jmxso i would avoid it. That said it doesnt > >bring any feature so i dont want to fight for a name. > >Romain Manni-Bucau > >Twitter: @rmannibucau > >Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > > > > >2014-02-18 10:12 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > >> @romain: > >> you will always have same/similar terms in different areas (see e.g. > >> "message"). > >> > >> regards, > >> gerhard > >> > >> >
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
+1 kind of tradeoff Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-02-18 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > we haven't seen a nice name so far -> i would keep what we have right now > (it's redundant, but at least a bit more expressive). > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2014-02-18 10:20 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > >> I do agree on @Managed not being very expressive. Think about the >> @ManagedBean disaster in JavaEE itself. 'Managed' is in the same ballpark >> like 'Class' or 'Object'. >> >> Managed by whom and what? >> In that case I'd rather go with @DeltaSpike or keep @Web... >> But I do not care that much about names... >> >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 10:15, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> @Gerhard: yeah but managed is not expressive, doesnt give the origin + >> >is quite standard for jmxso i would avoid it. That said it doesnt >> >bring any feature so i dont want to fight for a name. >> >Romain Manni-Bucau >> >Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > >> > >> > >> >2014-02-18 10:12 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : >> >> @romain: >> >> you will always have same/similar terms in different areas (see e.g. >> >> "message"). >> >> >> >> regards, >> >> gerhard >> >> >> >> >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
IMO it's actually more expressive than any other names. Maybe @DeltaSpikeManaged would be more impressive... +1 @DeltaSpike then, before keeping the old redudant/"ugly" qualifiers. 2014-02-18 10:51 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > +1 kind of tradeoff > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2014-02-18 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > > we haven't seen a nice name so far -> i would keep what we have right now > > (it's redundant, but at least a bit more expressive). > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > > > > > 2014-02-18 10:20 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > > > >> I do agree on @Managed not being very expressive. Think about the > >> @ManagedBean disaster in JavaEE itself. 'Managed' is in the same > ballpark > >> like 'Class' or 'Object'. > >> > >> Managed by whom and what? > >> In that case I'd rather go with @DeltaSpike or keep @Web... > >> But I do not care that much about names... > >> > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 10:15, Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> @Gerhard: yeah but managed is not expressive, doesnt give the origin + > >> >is quite standard for jmxso i would avoid it. That said it doesnt > >> >bring any feature so i dont want to fight for a name. > >> >Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >2014-02-18 10:12 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: > >> >> @romain: > >> >> you will always have same/similar terms in different areas (see e.g. > >> >> "message"). > >> >> > >> >> regards, > >> >> gerhard > >> >> > >> >> > >> >
[jira] [Created] (DELTASPIKE-524) illegal implementation of SecurityAwareViewHandler
Markus Schulz created DELTASPIKE-524:
Summary: illegal implementation of SecurityAwareViewHandler
Key: DELTASPIKE-524
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-524
Project: DeltaSpike
Issue Type: Bug
Components: JSF-Module
Affects Versions: 0.5
Reporter: Markus Schulz
the implementation of the SecurityAwareViewHandler use something like this:
{quote}
public UIViewRoot createView(FacesContext context, String viewId)
{
..
context.setViewRoot(result);
...
if (originalViewRoot != null)
{
context.setViewRoot(originalViewRoot);
}
..
}
{quote}
But the call to context.setViewRoot(..) will clear the viewMap of the current
active ViewRoot and therefore it destroys the state of current view.
Sample:
ViewDeclarationLanguage vdl =
context.getApplication().getViewHandler().getViewDeclarationLanguage(context,
cleanTargetViewName);
ViewMetadata viewMetadata = vdl.getViewMetadata(context, cleanTargetViewName);
UIViewRoot viewRoot = viewMetadata.createMetadataView(context);
targetViewParams = ViewMetadata.getViewParameters(viewRoot);
the call to viewMetadata.createMetadataView(context) will destroy my current
viewMap.
That should not be happen.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
[jira] [Assigned] (DELTASPIKE-524) illegal implementation of SecurityAwareViewHandler
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-524?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Gerhard Petracek reassigned DELTASPIKE-524:
---
Assignee: Gerhard Petracek
> illegal implementation of SecurityAwareViewHandler
> --
>
> Key: DELTASPIKE-524
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-524
> Project: DeltaSpike
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: JSF-Module
>Affects Versions: 0.5
>Reporter: Markus Schulz
>Assignee: Gerhard Petracek
>
> the implementation of the SecurityAwareViewHandler use something like this:
> {quote}
> public UIViewRoot createView(FacesContext context, String viewId)
> {
> ..
> context.setViewRoot(result);
> ...
> if (originalViewRoot != null)
> {
> context.setViewRoot(originalViewRoot);
> }
> ..
> }
> {quote}
> But the call to context.setViewRoot(..) will clear the viewMap of the current
> active ViewRoot and therefore it destroys the state of current view.
> Sample:
> ViewDeclarationLanguage vdl =
> context.getApplication().getViewHandler().getViewDeclarationLanguage(context,
> cleanTargetViewName);
> ViewMetadata viewMetadata = vdl.getViewMetadata(context, cleanTargetViewName);
> UIViewRoot viewRoot = viewMetadata.createMetadataView(context);
> targetViewParams = ViewMetadata.getViewParameters(viewRoot);
> the call to viewMetadata.createMetadataView(context) will destroy my current
> viewMap.
> That should not be happen.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
[jira] [Updated] (DELTASPIKE-524) illegal implementation of SecurityAwareViewHandler
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-524?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Gerhard Petracek updated DELTASPIKE-524:
Attachment: DELTASPIKE-524.patch
> illegal implementation of SecurityAwareViewHandler
> --
>
> Key: DELTASPIKE-524
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-524
> Project: DeltaSpike
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: JSF-Module
>Affects Versions: 0.5
>Reporter: Markus Schulz
>Assignee: Gerhard Petracek
> Attachments: DELTASPIKE-524.patch
>
>
> the implementation of the SecurityAwareViewHandler use something like this:
> {quote}
> public UIViewRoot createView(FacesContext context, String viewId)
> {
> ..
> context.setViewRoot(result);
> ...
> if (originalViewRoot != null)
> {
> context.setViewRoot(originalViewRoot);
> }
> ..
> }
> {quote}
> But the call to context.setViewRoot(..) will clear the viewMap of the current
> active ViewRoot and therefore it destroys the state of current view.
> Sample:
> ViewDeclarationLanguage vdl =
> context.getApplication().getViewHandler().getViewDeclarationLanguage(context,
> cleanTargetViewName);
> ViewMetadata viewMetadata = vdl.getViewMetadata(context, cleanTargetViewName);
> UIViewRoot viewRoot = viewMetadata.createMetadataView(context);
> targetViewParams = ViewMetadata.getViewParameters(viewRoot);
> the call to viewMetadata.createMetadataView(context) will destroy my current
> viewMap.
> That should not be happen.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
[DISCUSS] move @Initialized and @Destroyed
hi @ all, if we would move @Initialized and @Destroyed to ds-core, we could use them for other parts as well (e.g. instead of @BeforeJsfRequest and @AfterJsfRequest). regards, gerhard
[jira] [Updated] (DELTASPIKE-524) illegal implementation of SecurityAwareViewHandler
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-524?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Gerhard Petracek updated DELTASPIKE-524:
Attachment: (was: DELTASPIKE-524.patch)
> illegal implementation of SecurityAwareViewHandler
> --
>
> Key: DELTASPIKE-524
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-524
> Project: DeltaSpike
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: JSF-Module
>Affects Versions: 0.5
>Reporter: Markus Schulz
>Assignee: Gerhard Petracek
>
> the implementation of the SecurityAwareViewHandler use something like this:
> {quote}
> public UIViewRoot createView(FacesContext context, String viewId)
> {
> ..
> context.setViewRoot(result);
> ...
> if (originalViewRoot != null)
> {
> context.setViewRoot(originalViewRoot);
> }
> ..
> }
> {quote}
> But the call to context.setViewRoot(..) will clear the viewMap of the current
> active ViewRoot and therefore it destroys the state of current view.
> Sample:
> ViewDeclarationLanguage vdl =
> context.getApplication().getViewHandler().getViewDeclarationLanguage(context,
> cleanTargetViewName);
> ViewMetadata viewMetadata = vdl.getViewMetadata(context, cleanTargetViewName);
> UIViewRoot viewRoot = viewMetadata.createMetadataView(context);
> targetViewParams = ViewMetadata.getViewParameters(viewRoot);
> the call to viewMetadata.createMetadataView(context) will destroy my current
> viewMap.
> That should not be happen.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
Re: [DISCUSS] move @Initialized and @Destroyed
+1 I like such minor improvements and finalize such stuff :) Whats the replacements for @After/BeforeJsfRequest then? 2014-02-18 13:23 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > hi @ all, > > if we would move @Initialized and @Destroyed to ds-core, we could use them > for other parts as well (e.g. instead of @BeforeJsfRequest and > @AfterJsfRequest). > > regards, > gerhard >
Re: [DISCUSS] move @Initialized and @Destroyed
+1 LieGrue, strub On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 13:27, Thomas Andraschko wrote: +1 >I like such minor improvements and finalize such stuff :) > >Whats the replacements for @After/BeforeJsfRequest then? > > > > >2014-02-18 13:23 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > >> hi @ all, >> >> if we would move @Initialized and @Destroyed to ds-core, we could use them >> for other parts as well (e.g. instead of @BeforeJsfRequest and >> @AfterJsfRequest). >> >> regards, >> gerhard >> > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] move @Initialized and @Destroyed
@ thomas: @Observes @BeforeJsfRequest FacesContext @Observes @AfterJsfRequest FacesContext -> @Observes @Initialized FacesContext @Observes @Destroyed FacesContext the implementation of @AfterJsfRequest fits to @Destroyed, but for @Initialized we might have to move the logic (to get a real initialization event). if we would move it to DeltaSpikeFacesContextFactory the benefit is minimal, but there would be an overhead for resource-request and there is no active client-window at that point. regards, gerhard 2014-02-18 13:44 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > +1 > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > > On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 13:27, Thomas Andraschko < > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 > >I like such minor improvements and finalize such stuff :) > > > >Whats the replacements for @After/BeforeJsfRequest then? > > > > > > > > > >2014-02-18 13:23 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > > > >> hi @ all, > >> > >> if we would move @Initialized and @Destroyed to ds-core, we could use > them > >> for other parts as well (e.g. instead of @BeforeJsfRequest and > >> @AfterJsfRequest). > >> > >> regards, > >> gerhard > >> > > > > > > >
[jira] [Updated] (DELTASPIKE-524) illegal implementation of SecurityAwareViewHandler
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-524?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Gerhard Petracek updated DELTASPIKE-524:
Attachment: DELTASPIKE-524.patch
> illegal implementation of SecurityAwareViewHandler
> --
>
> Key: DELTASPIKE-524
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-524
> Project: DeltaSpike
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: JSF-Module
>Affects Versions: 0.5
>Reporter: Markus Schulz
>Assignee: Gerhard Petracek
> Attachments: DELTASPIKE-524.patch
>
>
> the implementation of the SecurityAwareViewHandler use something like this:
> {quote}
> public UIViewRoot createView(FacesContext context, String viewId)
> {
> ..
> context.setViewRoot(result);
> ...
> if (originalViewRoot != null)
> {
> context.setViewRoot(originalViewRoot);
> }
> ..
> }
> {quote}
> But the call to context.setViewRoot(..) will clear the viewMap of the current
> active ViewRoot and therefore it destroys the state of current view.
> Sample:
> ViewDeclarationLanguage vdl =
> context.getApplication().getViewHandler().getViewDeclarationLanguage(context,
> cleanTargetViewName);
> ViewMetadata viewMetadata = vdl.getViewMetadata(context, cleanTargetViewName);
> UIViewRoot viewRoot = viewMetadata.createMetadataView(context);
> targetViewParams = ViewMetadata.getViewParameters(viewRoot);
> the call to viewMetadata.createMetadataView(context) will destroy my current
> viewMap.
> That should not be happen.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
Re: [DISCUSS] move @Initialized and @Destroyed
sounds good! 2014-02-18 14:19 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > @ thomas: > > @Observes @BeforeJsfRequest FacesContext > @Observes @AfterJsfRequest FacesContext > -> > @Observes @Initialized FacesContext > @Observes @Destroyed FacesContext > > the implementation of @AfterJsfRequest fits to @Destroyed, but for > @Initialized we might have to move the logic (to get a real initialization > event). > if we would move it to DeltaSpikeFacesContextFactory the benefit is > minimal, but there would be an overhead for resource-request and there is > no active client-window at that point. > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2014-02-18 13:44 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > > > +1 > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 13:27, Thomas Andraschko < > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > +1 > > >I like such minor improvements and finalize such stuff :) > > > > > >Whats the replacements for @After/BeforeJsfRequest then? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >2014-02-18 13:23 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek >: > > > > > >> hi @ all, > > >> > > >> if we would move @Initialized and @Destroyed to ds-core, we could use > > them > > >> for other parts as well (e.g. instead of @BeforeJsfRequest and > > >> @AfterJsfRequest). > > >> > > >> regards, > > >> gerhard > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] move @Initialized and @Destroyed
+1 2014-02-18 14:29 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko : > sounds good! > > > 2014-02-18 14:19 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > > > @ thomas: > > > > @Observes @BeforeJsfRequest FacesContext > > @Observes @AfterJsfRequest FacesContext > > -> > > @Observes @Initialized FacesContext > > @Observes @Destroyed FacesContext > > > > the implementation of @AfterJsfRequest fits to @Destroyed, but for > > @Initialized we might have to move the logic (to get a real > initialization > > event). > > if we would move it to DeltaSpikeFacesContextFactory the benefit is > > minimal, but there would be an overhead for resource-request and there is > > no active client-window at that point. > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > > > > > 2014-02-18 13:44 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > > > > > +1 > > > > > > LieGrue, > > > strub > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 13:27, Thomas Andraschko < > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > +1 > > > >I like such minor improvements and finalize such stuff :) > > > > > > > >Whats the replacements for @After/BeforeJsfRequest then? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >2014-02-18 13:23 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > >> hi @ all, > > > >> > > > >> if we would move @Initialized and @Destroyed to ds-core, we could > use > > > them > > > >> for other parts as well (e.g. instead of @BeforeJsfRequest and > > > >> @AfterJsfRequest). > > > >> > > > >> regards, > > > >> gerhard > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Christian Kaltepoth Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
