Btw. We can handle the javax vs. jakarta thing in the same way supporting both 
sets of annotations at the same time without changing the code-base, can't we?

Cheers,
Arne

--
Arne Limburg – Enterprise Architect



OPEN KNOWLEDGE GmbH
Poststraße 1, 26122 Oldenburg
Mobil: +49 151 - 108 22 942
Tel: +49 441 - 4082-154
Fax: +49 441 - 4082-111
arne.limb...@openknowledge.de
www.openknowledge.de

Registergericht: Amtsgericht Oldenburg, HRB 4670
Geschäftsführer: Lars Röwekamp, Jens Schumann

Nächste Konferenz:

Java Forum Nord | Hannover | 24. September 2019

Nächste Akademie:

API, Microservices & DDD Summit | München | 17. - 19. Juni 2019

Treffen Sie uns auf weiteren Konferenzen,
Summits und Events:

Zu unseren weiteren Events



Am 06.05.19, 14:41 schrieb "Arne Limburg" <arne.limb...@openknowledge.de>:

    Hmm,
    thinking more of it:
    Shouldn't it be just an Extension that adds an @Inject Annotation to every 
Field and Method parameter that has a qualifier?

    Cheers,
    Arne

    --
    Arne Limburg – Enterprise Architect



 Am 06.05.19, 14:06 schrieb "Gerhard Petracek" <gpetra...@apache.org>:

        hi romain,

        some years ago i tried to do something similar (afair with owb 1.0.x)
        based on our plugin-spi.
        back then it was just possible via a plugin for resource-injection
        (and it was a bit "tricky").
        if nothing changed in the meantime, we should take the chance to add a
        more powerful injection-spi (to allow multiple plugins which can
        participate in the "injection-lifecycle").
        -> your approach would be one of many plugins users can add (e.g. with
        auto. activation...).

        regards,
        gerhard

        Am So., 5. Mai 2019 um 22:09 Uhr schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau
        <rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
        >
        > Good catch!
        >
        > If no objection i can push a first version like on friday I think.
        >
        > Le dim. 5 mai 2019 à 21:58, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> 
a
        > écrit :
        >
        > > And NO @Produces....
        > >
        > > LieGrue,
        > > Strub
        > >
        > > > Am 05.05.2019 um 20:07 schrieb Arne Limburg <
        > > arne.limb...@openknowledge.de>:
        > > >
        > > > I
        > > > OPEN KNOWLEDGE GmbH
        > > > Poststraße 1, 26122 Oldenburg
        > > > Mobil: +49 151 - 108 22 942
        > > > Tel: +49 441 - 4082-154
        > > > Fax: +49 441 - 4082-111
        > > > arne.limb...@openknowledge.de
        > > > www.openknowledge.de
        > > >
        > > > Registergericht: Amtsgericht Oldenburg, HRB 4670
        > > > Geschäftsführer: Lars Röwekamp, Jens Schumann
        > > >
        > > > Nächste Konferenz:
        > > >
        > > > Jax | Mainz | 6. - 10. Mai 2019
        > > >
        > > > Nächste Akademie:
        > > >
        > > > API, Microservices & DDD Summit | München | 17. - 19. Juni 2019
        > > >
        > > > Treffen Sie uns auf weiteren Konferenzen,
        > > > Summits und Events:
        > > >
        > > > Zu unseren weiteren Events
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > am fine with that. I even thought of that before, when I wanted 
to add
        > > @PersistenceContext as qualifier to implement injection of 
EntityManager by
        > > myself in a pure CDI-Scenario.
        > > >
        > > > Cheers,
        > > > Arne
        > > >
        > > > --
        > > > Arne Limburg – Enterprise Architect
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Am 05.05.19, 19:39 schrieb "Romain Manni-Bucau" 
<rmannibu...@gmail.com
        > > >:
        > > >
        > > >    Hi guys,
        > > >
        > > >    Quarkus makes @Inject optional for MP qualifiers, can we add a 
flag
        > > to get
        > > >    it? I.e. injection point is defined if inject is there or 
there is a
        > > >    qualifier (even without inject)?
        > > >
        > > >    It can probably be extended to delegate too - but less common.
        > > >
        > > >    Guess it can be on by default but fine if you prefer it off 
too to
        > > >    encourage portability.
        > > >
        > > >    Wdyt?
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > >




Reply via email to