Ok, let's consider
http://it-crowd.com.pl/svn/seam3-persistence-framework/trunk/framework/src/main/java/pl/com/it_crowd/seam/framework/converter/EntityConverter.java
It's part of seam3-persistence-framework (itcrowd's port of seam2
persistence framework).
Entity converter needs EntityManager to load entity from DB by id.
Currently all I need to do is to attach seam3-persistence-framewor.jar to
my application and
add following lines to seam-beans.xml:
<pf-converter:EntityConverter>
<pf-converter:entityManager>
<s:Inject/>
</pf-converter:entityManager>
<s:modifies/>
</pf-converter:EntityConverter>
I know that I could write @Produces method, but I like this way. It's also
cool to turn some bean from non CDI library into CDI bean simply with 1
line of XML config.
Other sample:
<app-config:PBESpecImpl
algorithmJNDI="java:/appName/encryption/algorithm"
iterationCountJNDI="java:/appName/encryption/iterationCount"
passwordJNDI="java:/appName/encryption/password"
saltJNDI="java:/appName/encryption/salt">
<s:modifies/>
</app-config:PBESpecImpl>
Do all servers have same JNDI patterns so I could hardcode it? Even if so
PBESpecImpl is part of library that is being attached to many projects
where each project wants different JNDI locations for particular config.
2012/9/11 Mehdi Heidarzadeh <[email protected]>
> We have some developers who like xml and some who hate xml and that might
> be because of different tastes or background when working with XML in the
> past or what ever.
> I think configuration with both xml and property files are ok, because some
> developers like property files and some like annotations and some xml and
> some of them like combination of them like me ;)
> I hate *writing* *code* using XML (like mapping entities, it's kind of
> writing code using xml) but I like configuring *application
> configuration*with xml or property files, because I can change them in
> deploy time
> depending on deployment environment without any compilation.
> when you ask someone about XML vs annotation vs ...? I think the answer
> will depend on the taste and background of that developer.
>
> Since seam3 has xml configuration and DS can reuse it, why not providing
> xml configuration feature too, and letting the developer to choose which
> one to use? producer methods vs xml vs property file?
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Marius Bogoevici <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 2012-09-10 8:25 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
> >
> >> This is what I would use non-compiled resources for as well.
> >>
> >> If I needed to CDI-enable some code without using annotations, I would
> >> use the portable extension API directly.
> >>
> > Yes and no. In my opinion this is generic enough to warrant a
> configurable
> > implementation, rather than producing a code template that would be
> copied
> > and pasted around. I understand that all of us can master the fine points
> > of writing an extension, but a configurable solution may be easier for
> the
> > average developer.
> >
> >
> >> On 7 Sep 2012, at 22:31, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >>
> >> Why i would like to use files (i find xml too verbose) is for constants
> >>> (uri for instance) or alternative/interceptor (as mentionned)
> >>>
> >>> Today i find other use case the translation of bad design
> >>>
> >>> ...just my opinion maybe
> >>> Le 7 sept. 2012 23:01, "Jason Porter" <[email protected]> a
> écrit
> >>> :
> >>>
> >>> Mark, Pete and I discussed a little bit about the XML config (from
> >>>> Solder)
> >>>> on IRC today. We quickly decided that we needed to move over to the
> >>>> mailing
> >>>> list for more input, and to make things official.
> >>>>
> >>>> As things currently exist in the Solder XML Config, it's probably not
> >>>> portable and would really need some of the changes in CDI 1.1 to work
> >>>> properly. We also discussed throwing out the idea of completely
> >>>> configuring
> >>>> beans via XML and using the XML config for other tasks such as
> applying
> >>>> interceptors and the like via regex or similar ideas, in other words
> >>>> having
> >>>> it being a subset of what currently exists today. What is in Solder is
> >>>> very
> >>>> similar to configuring beans via XML in Spring, and we feel that
> >>>> paradigm
> >>>> has sailed.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm starting this thread to get some other ideas about what we should
> do
> >>>> for XML config and also see what people think.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jason Porter
> >>>> http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.**com <
> http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com>
> >>>> http://twitter.com/**lightguardjp <http://twitter.com/lightguardjp>
> >>>>
> >>>> Software Engineer
> >>>> Open Source Advocate
> >>>> Author of Seam Catch - Next Generation Java Exception Handling
> >>>>
> >>>> PGP key id: 926CCFF5
> >>>> PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
>
>
> --
> Mehdi Heidarzadeh Ardalani
> Independent JEE Consultant, Architect and Developer.
> http://www.TheBigJavaBlog.com
>
