What Arne proposed seems reasonable to me.
On 3 Apr 2012, at 17:19, Mark Struberg wrote:
> In fact there are good things in both the Weld and the OWB base class for all
> scopes. And since both those CDI impls do have such a base class, it seems
> that there is of course some kind of 'common' bits.
>
> @Pete: my main point was not to bitch the CDI Conversation, but the paragraph
> below that:
>
>> Maybe we start this discussion from a different perspective: which
> features do you like to have solved in a portable/reusable way?
>>
>> The 3-line
>> public InstanceHolder class {
>> Bean<?> ban;
>> CreationalContext<?> cc;
>> Object instance;
>> }
>>
>> which you store in the underlying storage (e.g. a Map)?
>>
>> The get(Bean) and get(Bean, CreationalContext) methods?
>
> I like to break this up in functionality points which we can discuss. The
> question for me is "what functionality should such a base class for Context
> implementations contain?".
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Arne Limburg <arne.limb...@openknowledge.de>
>> To: "deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org"
>> <deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2012 3:29 PM
>> Subject: AW: Custom Context utilities
>>
>> Hi,
>> how do you think about this as a starting point:
>> https://github.com/openknowledge/openknowledge-cdi-extensions/blob/master/openknowledge-cdi-scope/src/main/java/de/openknowledge/cdi/scope/AbstractContext.java
>>
>> Btw: InstanceHolder seems to be a better name for that class since instance
>> has
>> another meaning in CDI...
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arne
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Pete Muir [mailto:pm...@redhat.com]
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. April 2012 15:20
>> An: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org; Mark Struberg
>> Betreff: Re: Custom Context utilities
>>
>> Given that it's what Alan was asking about, I think it's a good
>> discussion to have ;-)
>>
>> I know you think it's broken, but others don't agree.
>>
>> On 3 Apr 2012, at 14:17, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure if the CDI Conversation scope is a good example as it is
>>> widely considered pretty much broken ;)
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe we start this discussion from a different perspective: which features
>> do you like to have solved in a portable/reusable way?
>>>
>>> The 3-line
>>> public InstanceHolder class {
>>> Bean<?> ban;
>>> CreationalContext<?> cc;
>>> Object instance;
>>> }
>>>
>>> which you store in the underlying storage (e.g. a Map)?
>>>
>>> The get(Bean) and get(Bean, CreationalContext) methods?
>>>
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2012 2:57 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Custom Context utilities
>>>>
>>>> IMO it would be better if CDI offered reusable conversations, like we
>>>> did with Weld, rather than it being an extension. So you can just
>>>> take advantage of Weld's conversation stuff, or OWB's.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe there is a need to have something before we get this in CDI 1.1?
>>>>
>>>> On 3 Apr 2012, at 13:55, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That's actually the code I was looking at before I started this
>>>> thread. This led me to think, if I need it then I'm pretty sure
>> that
>>>> other framework developers would need it as well, my needs being
>>>> pretty straightforward.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 3, 2012, at 3:44 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are happy to be tied to a specific CDI implementation,
>> you
>>>>>> could
>>>> use the Weld "bound conversations" -
>>>> http://docs.jboss.org/weld/reference/1.1.5.Final/en-US/html/contexts.
>>>> html#d0e5506
>>>> - which can be backed by two maps, one representing the
>> "session" and
>>>> one the "request". Or, you could take a look at how Weld
>> implements
>>>> conversations for inspiration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we maybe would add a conversation scope like this, that
>> is
>>>>>> just
>>>> bound by maps and api, not tied to the web, in some later version of
>> DeltaSpike.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2 Apr 2012, at 21:10, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe the confusion stems from my lack of experience
>> creating
>>>> custom contexts. Let me explain what I'm trying to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm trying to manage a state machine, SM, which has
>> been
>>>> associated with a particular session scope of a communications link.
>>>> The current state is a scope associated w/ that SM. When the SM
>>>> transitions to a new state the old state/scope is destroyed and a new
>> one is created.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that it's kind of like a conversation. Is
>> there any
>>>> example code that I could look at that supports this kind of scenario?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2012, at 3:51 AM, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i agree with pete.
>>>>>>>> in myfaces codi we have a basic (internal)
>> infrastructure for
>>>> more advanced
>>>>>>>> conversations and a spi for customizing the default
>> behaviour.
>>>>>>>> the infrastructure itself just makes sense for
>>>> "similar" scopes (right now
>>>>>>>> we have 4 scopes based on it and they share most of the
>>>> implementation).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -> it doesn't make sense for scopes which are
>> too
>>>> different (and the spi
>>>>>>>> should be enough to customize the default behaviour of
>> existing
>>>> scopes).
>>>>>>>> it would be nice if you share your requirements, maybe
>> there is
>>>> an existing
>>>>>>>> (custom) scope you can use.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>> gerhard
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2012/4/2 Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not quite sure what this would constitute,
>> beyond a
>>>> trivial base class
>>>>>>>>> or a consistent start/stop API. Every context has
>> quite
>>>> different
>>>>>>>>> requirements in my experience, and the hard part is
>> linking
>>>> the context to
>>>>>>>>> the start/stop points, and to whatever backs the
>> context,
>>>> not the actual
>>>>>>>>> context implementation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have some ideas about what utilities you
>> need?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1 Apr 2012, at 18:05, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It sure would be handy if there were a set of
>> utilities
>>>> available to
>>>>>>>>> help framework developers who wish to implement
>> custom
>>>> Contexts. Maybe I
>>>>>>>>> missed something during my perusal or maybe
>> it's not
>>>> all that tough.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The context that I need to implement is
>> something of a
>>>> conversational
>>>>>>>>> nature. So I don't think that it's trivial
>> to
>>>> implement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
