sounds *almost* fine for me @Arne: maybe i got it wrong: you link a handler with an interface?
what is nice with the annotation API is the handler doesn't know about the interface it proxies Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2012/12/20 Arne Limburg <[email protected]>: > Two things about this: First: I don't like from the solder approach, > because the interface is annotated instead of the implementation. > > Second, if we implement this we should conceptually make clear how it > differentiates from Interceptors and Decorators. And personally I think > this would work better with the InvocationHandler approach than with an > approach that is very similar to interceptors. > > So +1 for an approach like this: > > @HandlesInvocationsOn(MyInterface.class) > public class MyInvocationHandler implements InvocationHandler { > ... > } > > Technically we would register a custom Bean for every found > InvocationHandler with that annotation and take over the > interceptor-bindings from the interfaceŠ > So the invocation stack would be clear, too: > First Interceptors, > Second Decorators, > Third InvocationHandler > > Wdyt? > > Arne > > Am 20.12.12 01:53 schrieb "Romain Manni-Bucau" unter > <[email protected]>: > >>+1 >> >>that's a need, DS targets CDI 1.0 for now so just make this solder >>part portable ans it should be fine >> >>Romain Manni-Bucau >>Twitter: @rmannibucau >>Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >>LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >>Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >>2012/12/20 Jason Porter <[email protected]>: >>> At this point, I'd say just do it as is in solder. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:25 PM, John D. Ament >>><[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> Regarding the two open questions: >>>> >>>> 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 -> >>>> >>>> It looks like the JSR's answer >>>>(https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-110 ) >>>> is still unresolved - I'm not sure if we can get any further answer at >>>>this >>>> time. The last posts on the subject seem to discuss using something >>>>along >>>> the lines of an invocation handler, which I think would work well. >>>>Since >>>> we have some features coming up that are interested in having service >>>> handlers available, do we >>>> >>>> 1. Implement as is, or similar to, what is currently in Solder? >>>> 2. Push EG on a resolution >>>> 3. Do it using invocation handlers. >>>> 4. Do it some other way? >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Gerhard Petracek < >>>> [email protected] >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> > hi john, >>>> > >>>> > as mentioned before we need the answers to the existing questions. >>>> > >>>> > regards, >>>> > gerhard >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > 2012/4/4 John D. Ament <[email protected]> >>>> > >>>> > > 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-ser >>>>vicehandler.html >>>> > > > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>> > > > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> john >>>> > > > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>> > >>>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>> > >>>>>>> >>>> > > > >>> > >>>>> >>>> > > > >>> > >> >>>> > > > >>> > >> >>>> > > > >>> > >>>> > > > >>> > >>>> > > > >>> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jason Porter >>> http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com >>> http://twitter.com/lightguardjp >>> >>> Software Engineer >>> Open Source Advocate >>> >>> PGP key id: 926CCFF5 >>> PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu >
