i'd rather say no because the idea is to ease "util" extension writing. that's clearly not intended to be full business beans IMO (at least for a first step)
That's why i'd leave it as this for now wdyt? 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]>: > Mark refers to my call stack. > > Out of the box this call stack would exist just in OWB, because Weld would > not apply any Interceptors or Decorators... > > The question is: Should DS support Interceptors and Decorators on > InvocationHandler beans? My answer would be: yes, if our implementation > shall be a preview of CDI-110. > And that would make things complicated in the implementation... > > Am 20.12.12 12:11 schrieb "Romain Manni-Bucau" unter > <[email protected]>: > >>is it an issue for servicehandler? i don't think so >> >>it is often used to get util classes dynamically created, it is rarely >>(i never saw it) decorated directly >> >> >>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 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: >>> we stumbled about this lately. It seems CDI only forces support for >>>interceptors and decorators for CDI-annotated classes, but not for >>>Bean<T> which get added via extensions nor even producer methods and >>>fields :/ >>> >>> >>> Of course OWB does it, but it would be not portable... >>> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Arne Limburg <[email protected]> >>>> To: "[email protected]" >>>><[email protected]> >>>> Cc: >>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:18 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss >>>>ServiceHandler >>>> >>>>T wo 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 >>>> >
