well managedresource looks really like a jmx stuff for me and since it uses cdi managed is quite obvious. That's why i thought the project name would fit and make the origin obvious. 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 9:51 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: > @romain: > maybe not @Managed (it was just @DeltaSpikeManaged without the > project-name), but @ManagedResource is at least more expressive than the > project-name itself. > (that it's managed by ds is clear due to the package-name imo) > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2014-02-18 9:30 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > >> @Gerhard: hmm, @Managed neither in fact + the type is expressive, >> qualifier is just a namespace 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 9:26 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: >> > @romain: the point is that it isn't expressive at all... >> > >> > regards, >> > gerhard >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-18 9:20 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: >> > >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
