hi thomas, no - we don't have @Advanced. (-1 for adding it and therefore -1 for adding parts which would need such a qualifier.)
regards, gerhard 2013/6/1 Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> > Jep, there will be many EE6 users out there the next 1-3 years. > > there are also other possible features: > - injection in other BV artifacts - e.g. MessageInterpolator > - method validation (if possible with 1.0 specs) > > AFAIK all this features will be available in BV 1.1, so it would be enough > to create a BV1.0 module. > > Is there already something available like @Advanded in DS? > I personally don't like it. Do we really save performance? > Probably the best solution is to just activate injection if the module is > included. > > > Thats the same with JSF 2.2 ViewScoped. > How will it be handled in DS? > > > 2013/6/1 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > > > As others said, in an EE-6 container you cannot just exchange the bean > > validation provider easily. > > > > > > Yes, it's already possible to use the BeanProvider to achieve this goal. > > But it's also nice if that would work out of the box. > > An important criteria is of course that it must also work when bean > > validation-1.1 is available which will do the injection itself. > > > > > > Imo it's mostly a question about what else we like to add into this > module. > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> > > > To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org > > > Cc: > > > Sent: Saturday, 1 June 2013, 20:25 > > > Subject: Re: DISCUSS DeltaSpike-332 > > > > > > hi thomas, > > > > > > yes, because we based everything on the jsf 1.2 api. > > > (~nothing from the jsf2+ api was needed to provide what you get with > > codi.) > > > > > > @ "...in each validator...": > > > projects usually don't have that many constraint-validators which need > > > other services (and if so they might overuse it). > > > > > > we should encourage users to move to bv 1.1 asap. > > > (in case of apache bval we could even provide it for bv 1.0, since we > > have > > > to do it for 1.1+ anyway). > > > > > > regards, > > > gerhard > > > > > > > > > > > > 2013/6/1 Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> i know what you mean gerhard :) > > >> but IMO using manual injection or getting the bean via BeanManager > > etc. is > > >> just a "stupid" workaround in each validator. > > >> > > >> It would be just user friendly to provide a small module which > > provides BV > > >> injection. Also the effort to create this module is very very low. > > >> Sure it's not based on the newest technology versions but there is > also > > > a > > >> JSF 1.2 module in CODI. > > >> > > >> > > >> 2013/6/1 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> > > >> > > >> > @thomas: > > >> > if you are allowed to use bv 1.1, it should be possible (via > > >> > default-provider + the corresponding classloading-config for the > > > server > > >> you > > >> > are using). > > >> > if you are not allowed to use it, have a look at my initial > comments. > > >> > > > >> > @hantsy: > > >> > imo that's exotic anyway and you could still use BeanProvider. > > >> > > > >> > regards, > > >> > gerhard > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > 2013/6/1 hantsy <han...@yahoo.com.cn> > > >> > > > >> > > I noticed JSF 2.2 canceled the DI in JSF components in final > > > Specs, > > >> only > > >> > > support in JSF backend beans. > > >> > > > > >> > > MyFaces CODI provides @Advanced for DI in non contextual > > > object...it is > > >> > > still useful for JSF 2.2...but I do not want to add this to > > > enable > > >> > > injection on JSF validator, converter, etc. > > >> > > > > >> > > Hantsy > > >> > > On 6/1/2013 22:11, Thomas Andraschko wrote: > > >> > > > Also if BV 1.1 is coming soon, many customers can't > > > upgrade to BV 1.1 > > >> > or > > >> > > > JavaEE 7 the next 1-2 years. > > >> > > > So IMO it would be a great feature which shoudl be disabled > > > per > > >> > default. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 2013/6/1 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> Idem, not blocking IMO and bval 1.1 is coming so would > > > be useless > > >> soon > > >> > > >> Le 1 juin 2013 15:56, "Gerhard Petracek" < > > >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> > > >> > a > > >> > > >> écrit : > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> hi john, > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> codi doesn't do auto registration. you need > > > @Advanced to enable it. > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> if you aren't allowed to use bv 1.1 right know, > > > you can just use > > >> > > >>> BeanProvider manually (usually there are just few > > >> > constraint-validators > > >> > > >>> which need it at all) > > >> > > >>> or keep what your are using now in parallel or just > > > copy those few > > >> > > >> classes > > >> > > >>> to your ee6 (only) project. at least in case of codi > > > they are quite > > >> > > >>> independent (and in most cases just simple > > > wrappers). -> -1 for > > >> > adding > > >> > > >> it. > > >> > > >>> regards, > > >> > > >>> gerhard > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> 2013/6/1 John D. Ament > > > <john.d.am...@gmail.com> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>>> Hi All > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > > >>>> I wanted to begin introducing some level of > > > BeanValidation > > >> Support. > > >> > > >> The > > >> > > >>>> main goal that I have is to be able to create > > > CDI aware constraint > > >> > > >>>> validators, let's say you want to validate > > > @NonExistentEmail then > > >> > you > > >> > > >>>> should be able to run a query against your DB > > > using your CDI > > >> > services > > >> > > >> and > > >> > > >>>> determine if the given email is already present > > > or not. > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > > >>>> To do this, both Seam3 and CODI introduced a CDI > > > aware > > >> > > >> ConstraintFactory. > > >> > > >>>> When it creates an instance the instance is a > > > CDI object, so it > > >> has > > >> > > >> full > > >> > > >>>> access to @Inject fields. I'd like to bring > > > this type of > > >> > > functionality > > >> > > >>>> over to DS. > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > > >>>> The point where the two diverge is that CODI > > > does an auto > > >> > registration > > >> > > >>>> whereas Seam3 does a registration via > > > validation.xml. As far as I > > >> > > >> know, > > >> > > >>>> CDI already allows the injection of Validator > > > and ValidatorFactory > > >> > > >>> (though > > >> > > >>>> the OWB guys can tell me if they disagree). > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > > >>>> Please let me know if anyone has concerns with > > > adding this. Yes, > > >> I > > >> > > >>> realize > > >> > > >>>> that this functionality is in bean val 1.1, but > > > not everyone can > > >> > > >> upgrade > > >> > > >>> to > > >> > > >>>> bean val 1.1 yet. > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > > >>>> John > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > > > > >> > > -- > > >> > > Hantsy Bai > > >> > > Blog:http://hantsy.blogspot.com > > >> > > LinkedIN:http://www.linkedin.com/in/hantsy > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
