On 12-03-06 9:35 PM, Jason Porter wrote:
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.
I'd rather think of mixins.
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
