Project name should be fine now, if not all pakcages will change so same impact than annotation name Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-02-18 9:18 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>: > I like @DeltaSpike but as gerhard said, maybe it's better to use one > without the project name in it? On the other side, DeltaSpike is the final > name... > > Maybe @ExtensionManaged? > > > 2014-02-18 8:54 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > >> @Gerhard: loos too much to existing JMX APIs + managed doesn't mean >> anything anymore today IMO >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> 2014-02-18 8:32 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: >> > @thomas: >> > maybe something like @Managed or @ManagedResource >> > >> > regards, >> > gerhard >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-18 7:17 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: >> > >> >> @DeltaSpike? >> >> Le 18 févr. 2014 06:26, "Christian Kaltepoth" <christ...@kaltepoth.de> >> a >> >> écrit : >> >> >> >> > @Thomas: I also like the idea of a global qualifier like this. That's >> >> > something I was already looking for when I created @Web back then. But >> >> the >> >> > most difficult question is what the name should be. Unfortunately >> I've no >> >> > really good idea. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > 2014-02-15 15:26 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> >> > >: >> >> > >> >> > > +1 >> >> > > Any ideas about the name gerhard? >> >> > > >> >> > > Any veto about such a change? >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > 2014-02-15 11:29 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> > >: >> >> > > >> >> > > > i'm ok with changing it, if we do it for both. >> >> > > > however, we would need a better name (imo without the >> project-name). >> >> > > > >> >> > > > regards, >> >> > > > gerhard >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > 2014-02-15 11:24 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> >> > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> >> > > > >: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > I found another case were something like >> >> > > > > @DeltaSpike/@DeltaSpikeManaged/etc. would probably be a better >> >> name: >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > @JsfPhaseListener public class MyPhaseListener implements >> >> > > PhaseListener { >> >> > > > > ... } >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > It's the same as with @Web. >> >> > > > > We already know that it's an PhaseListener. So why name the >> >> > annotation >> >> > > > the >> >> > > > > same again? >> >> > > > > We also already know that a HttpServletRequest is something from >> >> the >> >> > > > Web... >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > 2014-01-07 17:44 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> >> > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> >> > > > > >: >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > In the CDI 1.1 specs (3.7), there are only following beans >> >> defined: >> >> > > > > > HttpServletRequest >> >> > > > > > HttpSession >> >> > > > > > ServletContext >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > So if you are in a CDI 1.1 environment, it might be confusing >> >> > because >> >> > > > > some >> >> > > > > > artifacts are available without @Web and some only with @Web. >> >> > > > > > I will open a vote about it because i can't see a reason to >> keep >> >> > @Web >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 2014/1/5 Karl Kildén <karl.kil...@gmail.com> >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> This is my summary: >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> By following the discussion it seems to be seen as >> convenient vs >> >> > > > > >> inconvenient and the vote is kinda even. What I would like to >> >> see >> >> > is >> >> > > > > >> cohesion in Deltaspike overall. Either you use namespaces or >> you >> >> > > > don't. >> >> > > > > My >> >> > > > > >> point is basically that it feels more like a project-wide >> >> > decision. >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> To summarize, when a spec or w/e is expected to introduce the >> >> same >> >> > > > > >> producer >> >> > > > > >> different strategies can be used. So either the strategy as a >> >> user >> >> > > is >> >> > > > to >> >> > > > > >> a) >> >> > > > > >> use the namespace and drop it when someone else provides it >> >> (i.e a >> >> > > > spec) >> >> > > > > >> or >> >> > > > > >> b) Trust Deltaspike to handle any conflicts. >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> pros: >> >> > > > > >> - No conflicts or conflict management. >> >> > > > > >> - Users can use both variants for example if Deltaspike >> offers >> >> > > extras. >> >> > > > > >> Apparently already true for Servlet Module. >> >> > > > > >> - Abolishes the idea of transparent replacement with the >> >> argument >> >> > > that >> >> > > > > >> various enhancements might make it incompatible anyways. >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> cons: >> >> > > > > >> - Must remove namespace when Deltaspike is superfluous. No >> >> > namespace >> >> > > > and >> >> > > > > >> automatic veto would make it more seamless. >> >> > > > > >> - More verbose and not as pretty to use. >> >> > > > > >> - Does not see incompatibly as a big problem. Reasoning is: >> End >> >> > > user >> >> > > > > must >> >> > > > > >> test application behavior after upgrade anyway and problems >> >> should >> >> > > be >> >> > > > > >> minor. >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> Btw i'm +0 >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> On 4 January 2014 17:09, Gerhard Petracek < >> >> > > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> > > > > >> >wrote: >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > to summarize it: >> >> > > > > >> > so far we haven't seen a real blocker for dropping the >> >> > qualifier. >> >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > regards, >> >> > > > > >> > gerhard >> >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > never said it was blocking, just it shouldn't be done >> >> blindly >> >> > > and >> >> > > > > docs >> >> > > > > >> > > should be very explicit on it and potential conflict >> >> (usually >> >> > we >> >> > > > > don't >> >> > > > > >> > > care to not mention we don't use a qualifier, here we >> do). >> >> > > > > >> > > Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > > > > >> > > Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> > > > > >> > > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> > > > > >> > > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> > > > > >> > > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: >> >> > > > > >> > > > it was just one of several possibilities you have. >> >> > > > > >> > > > in any case, the special case you mentioned is still >> easy >> >> > > enough >> >> > > > > -> >> >> > > > > >> > there >> >> > > > > >> > > > is no issue/blocker imo. >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > regards, >> >> > > > > >> > > > gerhard >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> so didnt get your comment on decorators... >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> > > > > >> > > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >: >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > @romain: >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > you should do the wrapping like you would do it >> without >> >> > cdi >> >> > > > > >> anyway. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > regards, >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > gerhard >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> @gerhard: @Decorator is broken in 85% of the case >> and >> >> > > > doesn't >> >> > > > > >> work >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> with producers IIRC >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek < >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> >: >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > @romain: >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > you can use e.g. @Decorator in such special >> cases or >> >> > > just >> >> > > > do >> >> > > > > >> the >> >> > > > > >> > > >> wrapping >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > like you would without cdi. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > regards, >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > gerhard >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> yes and no, depend what you do of it, the point >> is >> >> if >> >> > > you >> >> > > > > >> base >> >> > > > > >> > > your >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> app on CDI (as much as possible I mean) and it >> >> starts >> >> > > to >> >> > > > be >> >> > > > > >> > > common, >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> you can put logic in these producers, typically >> >> > > wrapping >> >> > > > of >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> requests/responses (can be easier than using >> >> filters) >> >> > > and >> >> > > > > in >> >> > > > > >> > this >> >> > > > > >> > > >> case >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> this is often not 1-1 replacement. I know it is >> >> > doable >> >> > > > but >> >> > > > > >> needs >> >> > > > > >> > > to >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> update the app and can break "big apps" where >> you >> >> > > > aggregate >> >> > > > > >> > > multiple >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> parts. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Having a namespace should be a best practise >> IMHO. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek < >> >> > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> > > >: >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > @romain: >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > i don't see an issue here - if you add the >> >> > > > > >> ds-servlet-module, >> >> > > > > >> > > you >> >> > > > > >> > > >> just >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> drop >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > your own producers (which overlap and should >> do >> >> the >> >> > > > same >> >> > > > > >> > > anyway). >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > regards, >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > gerhard >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> well in fact I saw a lot of cdi 1.0 app >> >> producing >> >> > > > http* >> >> > > > > >> > objects >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> without qualifier cause it was missing in >> cdi so >> >> > > > > conflicts >> >> > > > > >> > can >> >> > > > > >> > > >> occurs >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> and are quite common >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> LinkedIn: >> http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek < >> >> > > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> > > > >: >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > we had no qualifier for FacesContext (in >> codi, >> >> > > > > >> seam3,...). >> >> > > > > >> > > >> since it >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> used >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> to >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > be a common producer, we saw "compatibility >> >> > > issues". >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > however, with a proper documentation (how >> to >> >> > veto >> >> > > > one >> >> > > > > of >> >> > > > > >> > > them), >> >> > > > > >> > > >> no >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> user >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > (i'm aware of) had a real issue with it and >> >> for >> >> > > the >> >> > > > > >> > majority >> >> > > > > >> > > it >> >> > > > > >> > > >> was >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> easier >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > to use (because there wasn't an issue at >> all). >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > regards, >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > gerhard >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > 2014/1/4 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> The question for me is: are there already >> >> known >> >> > > > > >> producers >> >> > > > > >> > > for >> >> > > > > >> > > >> it >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> or >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> is >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> there any spec which introduces this? >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> In that case a custom qualifier is always >> a >> >> > good >> >> > > > idea >> >> > > > > >> imo. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Otherwise >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> we >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> would face different behaviour on >> different >> >> > > > > containers. >> >> > > > > >> > They >> >> > > > > >> > > >> most >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> times >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> behave different... >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> I just would like to avoid possible >> >> > > > > incompatibilities. >> >> > > > > >> And >> >> > > > > >> > > for >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> this a >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> Qualifier certainly works great - without >> >> much >> >> > > > > >> additional >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> complexity. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> Does all the needed detection + veto >> really >> >> pay >> >> > > > off? >> >> > > > > >> How >> >> > > > > >> > do >> >> > > > > >> > > you >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> know >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> you >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> are running in an environment which >> already >> >> has >> >> > > > such >> >> > > > > a >> >> > > > > >> > > producer >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> registered? >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> This is not easy to accomplish! >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> Thus I'm for keeping it. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> LieGrue, >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> strub >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >________________________________ >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > From: Gerhard Petracek < >> >> > > > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >Sent: Saturday, 4 January 2014, 12:57 >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >Subject: Re: Servlet Module - Do we >> really >> >> > need >> >> > > > > @Web? >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >+1 for a veto in case of cdi 1.1. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >@external producers: >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >we can document it (how users can veto >> e.g. >> >> > > > > >> producers, if >> >> > > > > >> > > they >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> see >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> any >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >overlap). >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >however, deltaspike shouldn't add >> complexity >> >> > > just >> >> > > > > >> because >> >> > > > > >> > > >> there >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> might >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> be a >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >custom producer (for the same). >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >regards, >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >gerhard >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >2014/1/4 Christian Kaltepoth < >> >> > > > > christ...@kaltepoth.de> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> @John: Actually the Servlet module >> >> provides >> >> > > more >> >> > > > > >> than >> >> > > > > >> > > what >> >> > > > > >> > > >> CDI >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> 1.1 >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> adds. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> For example the event propagation and >> the >> >> > > > recently >> >> > > > > >> > added >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> "WebStorage" >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> for >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> the resource loading and so on. So >> people >> >> > may >> >> > > > want >> >> > > > > >> to >> >> > > > > >> > add >> >> > > > > >> > > >> the >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Servlet >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> module even in a CDI 1.1 container. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm also +0 for that. Of cause it >> would be >> >> > > nice >> >> > > > to >> >> > > > > >> get >> >> > > > > >> > > rid >> >> > > > > >> > > >> of >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> @Web. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> For >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> CDI 1.1 case we could actually veto our >> >> > > produces >> >> > > > > as >> >> > > > > >> > > Thomas >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> suggested. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> But >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> what about other portable extensions >> that >> >> > may >> >> > > > have >> >> > > > > >> > > producers >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> for >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> @Default. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Say I'm using CDI 1.0 and also have >> Solder >> >> > on >> >> > > > the >> >> > > > > >> > > >> classpath. I >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> think >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> Solder >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> is still a common dependency of some >> >> > > libraries, >> >> > > > > >> > correct? >> >> > > > > >> > > In >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> some >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> regard >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> it >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> is nice to have a custom "namespace" >> for >> >> the >> >> > > > > >> producers. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014/1/3 Thomas Andraschko < >> >> > > > > >> > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Because our customers have different >> >> > servers >> >> > > > > >> (tomcat7 >> >> > > > > >> > > and >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> even >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> 6, >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > glassfish, jboss), so it would be a >> >> great >> >> > > > > >> enhancement >> >> > > > > >> > > for >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> product >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > development. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > 2014/1/3 John D. Ament < >> >> > > > john.d.am...@gmail.com> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > If you're in servlet 3.1/CDI 1.1 >> you >> >> > don't >> >> > > > > even >> >> > > > > >> > need >> >> > > > > >> > > the >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> servlet >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > module (so why include it as a >> >> > > dependency?) >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:09 PM, >> Romain >> >> > > > > >> Manni-Bucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -0 both injections can be >> different >> >> > > > > depending >> >> > > > > >> on >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> containers >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> using >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> some >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > advanced stuff out of ee but >> >> affecting >> >> > > ee >> >> > > > > >> > lifecycle >> >> > > > > >> > > >> (at >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> least >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> in >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > tomcat) >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > but your proposal sounds >> acceptable. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Le 3 janv. 2014 17:58, "Thomas >> >> > > > Andraschko" < >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > a >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > écrit : >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> Hi, >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> IMHO @Web is somehow annoying. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> HttpServlet e.g. is always >> "web", >> >> so >> >> > > @Web >> >> > > > > is >> >> > > > > >> > just >> >> > > > > >> > > a >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> overhead >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> and >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > doesn't >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> look nice. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> Can't we just veto the >> producers if >> >> > > > CDI1.1 >> >> > > > > is >> >> > > > > >> > > >> available? >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> The code would be the same with >> CDI >> >> > > 1.0 + >> >> > > > > DS, >> >> > > > > >> > CDI >> >> > > > > >> > > 1.1 >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> without >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> or >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> with >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > DS. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> Regards, >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> Thomas >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Christian Kaltepoth >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/ >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Christian Kaltepoth >> >> > Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/ >> >> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal >> >> > GitHub: https://github.com/chkal >> >> > >> >> >>
