Agreed, only make it as complicated as it needs to be. An init param works for me. Makes sense given how we configure ourselves.
----- Original Message ---- From: Bryant Luk <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, May 28, 2010 8:58:35 AM Subject: Re: JSR-299 / Web Beans / JCDI Support We can probably change the LifecycleManager from the Default one to the EJB/JCDI one in an init param to make it more configurable. I'm more concerned about making the code very complicated to detect if the right classes are in the classpath. On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Nicholas L Gallardo <[email protected]>wrote: > +1 > > I think there are a couple of other issues that need to be looked at as > well. > > 1) When does the Web Beans lifecycle manager actually get turned on? In > other words, how do you know you're in a Web Beans aware container? Perhaps > it's something we assume first and try to grab an instance from a bean > manager. Or, we look for a beans.xml as we're starting up and make the > toggle that way. I dunno, but it's something to keep in mind. > > 2) Have a flag to turn it off. Moving from something like Wink and Tomcat > to Wink and Geronimo, users should be able to run Wink in a Web Beans aware > container the same way they did outside. I know, this is kind of a nit pick. > > Also, rather than lumping it out separately, we could create a whole Java > EE extension module to the base Wink distribution. So, you could download > Wink base or could grab Wink EE that would have the Web Beans integration > and the Servlet 3.0 integration that also needs to happen. That also gives > Geronimo one package to grab when we start the integration there. > > > > [image: Inactive hide details for Bryant Luk ---05/28/2010 07:05:18 > AM---Hi,]Bryant Luk ---05/28/2010 07:05:18 AM---Hi, > > > *Bryant Luk <[email protected]>* > > 05/28/2010 07:04 AM > Please respond to > [email protected] > > > > To > > [email protected] > cc > > > Subject > > JSR-299 / Web Beans / JCDI Support > > Hi, > > I opened issue WINK-287 to add in the support for JSR-299. If anyone > has any thoughts on what you want to happen here, then please reply. > > I think the issue will be like the Guice server module. 3 things I > think would need to happen: > 1) Determine if the bean is a web bean (which I think pretty much > every thing is minus the optional support conditions in JAX-RS 1.1 > spec). > 2) Get a reference to the web bean from the underlying OpenWebBeans > container. This may involve adding a callback to let the container > know it's ok to clean up somewhere in the handler chains. > 3) Add our injections (@Context, @*Param, etc.) to the web bean > container for JAX-RS beans. > > I think the web bean spec SPI should be good enough to do all of the > above and I am hoping we won't have to do anything proprietary. > > I posted a few questions to the OpenWebBeans user list which they answered: > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openwebbeans-user/201005.mbox/%[email protected]%3e > > What I think users will gain: > + In supporting JSR-299 containers, support for Java EE injections > + JSR-330 @Inject support > + JSR-299 Interceptors, decorators, events, etc. > + @PostConstruct / @PreDestroy support > + One of the last known pieces for JAX-RS 1.1 support in a Java EE 6 > container > > I also propose leaving this as an optional requirement (i.e. don't > require JSR-299 into the main wink-server/wink-common) since I think > users won't necessarily have a Java EE 6 environment. > > Thoughts, questions, suggestions? > >
