@mark I don't think it's a hard requirement for it to be on an interface.
One of the best use-cases we built at my job is using it for calling PL/SQL. The JDBC bindings do work, but not pretty. we were able to create a fairly clean wrapper API, generic enough for binding in/out parameters. JOhn On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > actually I don't really see a real benefit. I just don't yet grok the use > case for real world projects. > > Why would one intercept an Interface and delegate the calls to a method > handler? > This could be neat for mocking, but there are better frameworks for that. > > thus > > -0.2 > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: > > Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:15 PM > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss ServiceHandler > > > > if you have a lot of shared code, you can extract it in 1-n method/s or > an > > abstract class which is still easier than a new concept. > > at least i haven't seen an use-case which really needed it. that was the > > reason for a +0 (which still means that i'm ok with adding it). > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > > > > > 2012/3/6 Pete Muir <[email protected]> > > > >> So, you mean just write a bean with all the boilerplate code in it? > >> > >> On 6 Mar 2012, at 15:58, Gerhard Petracek wrote: > >> > >> > hi pete, > >> > > >> > instead of the interface you can just implement a bean which does the > >> same. > >> > > >> > regards, > >> > gerhard > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > 2012/3/6 Pete Muir <[email protected]> > >> > > >> >> What CDI mechanism would you use instead? > >> >> > >> >> On 5 Mar 2012, at 08:47, Gerhard Petracek wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> +0 > >> >>> no -1 because there are use-cases for it. > >> >>> no +1 because i would use std. cdi mechanisms instead. > >> >>> > >> >>> regards, > >> >>> gerhard > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> 2012/3/4 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > >> >>> > >> >>>> hi john, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> the sub-task is perfectly fine. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> regards, > >> >>>> gerhard > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> 2012/3/4 John D. Ament <[email protected]> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Hi All > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> I wanted to bring up the subject of ServiceHandler. I > > added 113 as a > >> >>>>> child > >> >>>>> of DELTASPIKE-2, looked appropriate but not 100% sure > > (so please let > >> me > >> >>>>> know if you think it's not appropriate as a > > child). ServiceHandler > >> is > >> >> a > >> >>>>> feature in Solder that allows you to define an > > interceptor that > >> manages > >> >>>>> generic calls against an injected interface. The API > > is as follows: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> - @ServiceHandlerType(Class<?> clazz) - placed > > on an annotation that > >> >> would > >> >>>>> be placed on the interface. Indicates what > > interceptor would be > >> >> invoked > >> >>>>> for calls against this interface. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> It's then up to the application > > developer/framework author to define > >> >>>>> annotations that go on methods, as well as the > > interceptor itself > >> that > >> >>>>> will > >> >>>>> be invoked. The feature for ServiceHandler would be > > to provide the > >> >> API of > >> >>>>> the type and then the infrastructure required to make > > the interceptor > >> >> be > >> >>>>> called. Existing documentation of the feature: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >> > >> > > > http://docs.jboss.org/seam/3/3.1.0.Final/reference/en-US/html/solder-servicehandler.html > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Regards, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> john > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > > >
