Somewhat. I wouldn't really think of them as overrides, they, to me, seem more like items to do in addition to whatever the original impl does.
ServiceHandlers to me seem more like super interceptors. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 6, 2012, at 19:23, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> wrote: > @jason > > I think the concepts are very dissimilar. servicehandlers create the > implementation. delegates are more like overrides and need to know about > the method signature. > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Jason Porter <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
