All, I kind of let this one and the other drop off my radar, I apologize. it looks like where we last left off, Gerhard was still requesting additional comments from everyone. Any other feedback?
John On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Gerhard Petracek < [email protected]> wrote: > hi george, > > thx for the information. i thought there might be at least some additional > answers/clarifications, since pete asked for them in several comments. > -> imo we should continue with them. > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2012/3/12 George Gastaldi <[email protected]> > > > 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 > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > > >
