I think the idea of ServiceHandlers are good, but, could we not do this with delegates?
Sent from my iPhone On Mar 6, 2012, at 19:05, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> wrote: > @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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>
