I get it but it means we add a layer on top of interceptor for pluggability. This is actually built in in CDI so not really needed.
Also the hierarchy point is fine but should be per type of strategy and therefore we dont need a generic one in the api. As a user if i use DS and an interceptor, do i need to impl this public api? Never normally so this sounds more misleading or reinventing the wheel than anything else for me. That said we can move it in our impl modules to keep the feature but still a clean api. Le 24 avr. 2018 23:21, "Gerhard Petracek" <[email protected]> a écrit : > a concrete example: > @Transactional > > -> > @Interceptor is on TransactionalInterceptor whereas InterceptorStrategy is > the marker interface for the strategies (and not the interceptor) - in this > case TransactionStrategy. > > (to quickly get an overview of all interceptor-strategies you just need to > open the hierarchy-view for InterceptorStrategy and you have everything you > need with one step...) > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2018-04-24 22:35 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > > > Hmm not sure i get it, annotations are hard to browse in IDE? Is it what > it > > addresses? > > > > Le 24 avr. 2018 21:10, "Gerhard Petracek" <[email protected]> a > écrit : > > > > > hi romain, > > > > > > not really. 1 interceptor could have n strategies as candidates (e.g. > see > > > TransactionStrategy for which we provide multiple implementations > > > out-of-the-box). > > > that's the whole concept. the marker interfaces is just to find all > > > strategies in a project easily. > > > we have it since 02/2011 (back then it was codi) and a lot of users > are > > > using it (during the dev. process) and i haven't heard about any > concern > > > (from users). > > > > > > regards, > > > gerhard > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-24 19:31 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > Le 24 avr. 2018 19:18, "Gerhard Petracek" <[email protected]> a > > > écrit : > > > > > > > > it was always just a marker-interface to list all > > interceptor-strategies > > > > easily. > > > > > > > > > > > > But if it is just interceptors, doesnt @Interceptor fulfills that > > > already? > > > > > > > > My only concern is exposing it in api to user where it is actually a > > dead > > > > interface. > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > gerhard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-24 13:47 GMT+02:00 Thomas Andraschko < > > > [email protected] > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > basically +1 > > > > > but its still used currently > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-23 11:46 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < > [email protected] > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we still need InterceptorStrategy? > > > > > > > > > > > > If not, can we deprecate it and remove it from our built-in > > > > interceptors? > > > > > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > > > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > > > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/ > > > > > > rmannibucau> | > > > > > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > > > > > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java- > > > > > > ee-8-high-performance> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
