Hello Gerhard, Yeah, it´s the last state. I know it´s quite old, but I haven´t had time to work on it after that. Regards,
George 2012/3/12 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > hi george, > > thx for the link. > i'm not sure if it is the latest state of your discussion and/or draft (at > least it's quite old already). > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2012/3/7 George Gastaldi <[email protected]> > >> Hi ! >> >> +1 to #1. I also agree that the term "Service Handler" might not be so >> appropriate, so it should be discussed as well. >> Here is the latest pull request with some comments from Pete yet to be >> reviewed: https://github.com/jboss/cdi/pull/28 >> >> 2012/3/7 Pete Muir <[email protected]> >> >> > 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 <[email protected]> >> > > >> > >> 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" <[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 >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >
