Agreed :-)
George is working on it for CDI 1.1. George, can you share your proposal so far?
On 7 Mar 2012, at 17:05, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
> hi pete,
>
> independent of my opinion about the feature (which is still +0):
> if it should be part of cdi 1.1, we have the following options imo:
>
> 1) the approach (including the name/s) we agree on will be used also for
> cdi 1.1 (the only difference is the package)
> 2) the eg has a different opinion about it ->
> 2a) the rest of the eg joins this discussion
> 2b) we wait for the final version and just allow the same with cdi 1.0
> 3) if the eg doesn't agree on the idea, it should be re-visited for
> deltaspike (if we really need it)
> 4) we agree on it independent of the result in cdi 1.1
>
> 1-3 is ok for me but -1 for #4
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2012/3/7 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by a "super interceptor", but if you mean it as
>> in "super man" (something better than an interceptor), then I would
>> disagree, it's actually a specialised form of interceptor.
>>
>> The best use case I know of is the one John mentions - creating type safe
>> references to queries:
>>
>> @QueryService
>> interface UserQuery {
>>
>> @Query("select u from User u")
>> public List<User> getAllUsers();
>>
>> @Query("select u from User u order by u.name")
>> public List<User> getAllUsersSortedByName();
>>
>> }
>>
>> Now, it may be the case that there aren't any other use cases for service
>> handlers, in which case we should perhaps just offer this particular
>> service handler - references to type safe queries - as I think this is an
>> extremely powerful idea.
>>
>> Note, that at the moment service handlers are scheduled for CDI 1.1.
>>
>>
>> On 7 Mar 2012, at 02:35, 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.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Mar 6, 2012, at 19:23, "John D. Ament" <john.d.am...@gmail.com>
>> 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 <lightguard...@gmail.com
>>> 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" <john.d.am...@gmail.com>
>> 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 <strub...@yahoo.de>
>>>>> 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 <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>> 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 <pm...@redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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 <pm...@redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hi john,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sub-task is perfectly fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gerhard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/3/4 John D. Ament <john.d.am...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
