oki, let's do that. Thanks Gerhard for the story behind that part of our code.
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> 2018-04-26 7:36 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]>: > imo we can re-visit the topic once we have cdi 1.1+ as our baseline, > because with cdi 1.0 it's def. needed. > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2018-04-26 7:16 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > > > there are 2 issues: > > > > 1. we reinvent the wheel and do a competitive API compared to CDI > > 2. most of them - except maybe tx one - will never be implemented by any > > user > > > > So we kind of encourage users to do it wrong. > > > > Always thought it was technical workarounds so now we are in 2018 I think > > we can slowly hide it or even drop it when not relevant (all core > > interceptors pby) > > > > > > > > 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> > > > > 2018-04-26 7:06 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]>: > > > > > the concrete interceptor-strategies (like TransactionStrategy) are part > > of > > > our spi. your suggestion would mean that we would need to move them as > > well > > > (= remove them from the spi). > > > def. -1 for that because i know several users who are using them. > > > i really don't get the issue you have with a simple marker interface > > (after > > > we have it for 7 years - including codi). > > > > > > btw. there are users out there who re-use InterceptorStrategy for their > > > internal interceptor-strategies (of their own libs). > > > > > > regards, > > > gerhard > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-26 6:41 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > Still means it doesnt have to be in the API right? > > > > > > > > Le 26 avr. 2018 00:44, "Gerhard Petracek" <[email protected]> a > > > écrit : > > > > > > > > > #1 with cdi 1.0 (or to be more concrete: owb for cdi 1.0) you can't > > get > > > > rid > > > > > of pre-configured interceptors (that's why we introduced the > > > > > interceptor-strategy concept initially). > > > > > #2 e.g. TransactionStrategy has benefits beyond that (a public > > example > > > is > > > > > the usage in the ds-data-module) > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > gerhard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-04-25 6:58 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < > [email protected] > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
