yep this one is 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 Arne Limburg <[email protected]>: > That was my first idea, however thinking about it, that wouldn't be much > CDI-like ;-) > > So we would introduce a @InvocationHandlerBinding meta-annotation? > Like: > > @InvocationHandlerBinding > public @interface Repository {} > > @Repository > public interface MyRepository { > ... > } > > @Repository @InvocationHandler > public class MyInvocationHandler implements InvocationHandler { > ... > } > > Looks much better, I think... > > Am 20.12.12 10:24 schrieb "Romain Manni-Bucau" unter > <[email protected]>: > >>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-s >>>>>>er >>>>>>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 >>> >
