2018-04-27 8:38 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid>: > No, it's not reinventing the wheel because those parts are missing in the > CDI spec. > > The point is to keep the same <interceptors><class> but you can switch the > actual behaviour purely via config. > That way we don't need to change the beans.xml content for switching e.g. > between resource_local and UserTransaction handling for @Transactional. > > And this is important because otherwise users would need to re-package > deltaspike jars :( > > So no, there is imo no way to do the same functionality in CDI - not even > CDI-2.0 >
Hmm, don't we do do it since cdi 1.0 (I ack it can be in late impl versions). An extension is perfectly able to do that since you can add the interceptor programmatically when needed and select the impl at the same time, no? I don't see the blocker we would have. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > Am 26.04.2018 um 07:16 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com > >: > > > > 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 <gpetra...@apache.org>: > > > >> 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 <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > >> > >>> Still means it doesnt have to be in the API right? > >>> > >>> Le 26 avr. 2018 00:44, "Gerhard Petracek" <gpetra...@apache.org> 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 <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > >>>> > >>>>> 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" <gpetra...@apache.org> 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 < > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com > >>>> : > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> 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" <gpetra...@apache.org> > >> 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 < > >>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com > >>>>>> : > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Le 24 avr. 2018 19:18, "Gerhard Petracek" < > >>> gpetra...@apache.org> > >>>> 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 < > >>>>>>>> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > >>>>>>>>>> : > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> basically +1 > >>>>>>>>>> but its still used currently > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 2018-04-23 11:46 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < > >>>>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com > >>>>>>>> : > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 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> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
