yes a chain or a spi with priority (both should be fine). regards, gerhard
Am Do., 9. Mai 2019 um 22:35 Uhr schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > > I see, means it is not a spi but a "spi chain" right? (handle vs > isSupported+handle) > > Makes sense this way to me. > > Le jeu. 9 mai 2019 à 22:31, Gerhard Petracek <gpetra...@apache.org> a > écrit : > > > hi romain, > > > > i've seen different (special) cases which would have been easier with > > such a spi - e.g. the integration of custom > > "module-binding"/qualifier/... concepts (without annotations) - not > > only but also - for injecting beans of other containers which don't > > force annotations (and e.g. @Named isn't useful) > > > > most parts are possible via std. cdi-producers (that's quite verbose > > and in many cases hardly ~accepted in projects), std. cdi-extensions > > (to get the acceptance for it is sometimes also not that easy, because > > it can get quite ~complex) or the resource-injection spi (it also has > > its disadvantages, but it's easy/easier to use). > > most use-cases came up around migrations to ee6 -> the demand might > > decrease over time... some switched from a step-by-step migration to > > an immediate migration and some just migrated to something different > > (in the end topics like that can be a significant part of the decisive > > factor). -> large/r migration-projects might benefit from such an > > option (i still know large projects using ee <= v5). > > > > @OWB-1287: > > i'll have a look at it next week > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > Am Do., 9. Mai 2019 um 18:55 Uhr schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > pushed a patch about it - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1287 > > > > > > you can see it is very trivial > > > > > > I have a few open points about it: > > > > > > 1. (For Gerhard) do you want a service for that? How would you generalize > > > it? > > > 2. I disabled the feature in impl and tck modules cause a few tests were > > > failing - I only activated it in the test about that particular feature. > > In > > > impl it is a bit of work but we can reverse the setup - ie on by default. > > > In TCK it is not hard since a single test fails but it requires to setup > > an > > > arquillian extension to customize - enrich - the owb configuration for > > that > > > test. Not sure how we stand about it and if we care much but this is a > > > small detail which can be surprising when seen. > > > 3. (likely for Mark) I pushed it on svn, is git already ready? Didn't see > > > it. > > > > > > Don't hesitate to give some feedback about it. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > Le mer. 8 mai 2019 à 20:52, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a > > > écrit : > > > > > > > Well, it is not that I dont like it, I just dont see such a SPI once we > > > > have qualifier feature or what it would bring. Do you have an example? > > > > > > > > That said adding a service and extracting that code is not super costly > > > > but semantically/design-ly not sure how to defend it yet. > > > > > > > > Le mer. 8 mai 2019 à 20:41, Gerhard Petracek <gpetra...@apache.org> a > > > > écrit : > > > > > > > >> hi romain, > > > >> > > > >> it was just a hint - that there would be a chance to make owb even > > > >> more plugable and maybe to refactor an existing spi to an even more > > > >> useful spi. > > > >> i'm fine with it, if you don't like to take such a chance. the overall > > > >> use-case isn't that important to start a long/er discussion. > > > >> > > > >> regards, > > > >> gerhard > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Am Mo., 6. Mai 2019 um 23:24 Uhr schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau > > > >> <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > > > >> > > > > >> > Le lun. 6 mai 2019 à 22:51, Gerhard Petracek <gpetra...@apache.org> > > a > > > >> > écrit : > > > >> > > > > >> > > my point was just to add a spi similar to the resource-injection > > > >> spi... > > > >> > > or maybe we can even unify the spi for all types of injections. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > Using qualifier - even through extensions - it does then so maybe > > we csn > > > >> > drop spi > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > regards, > > > >> > > gerhard > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Am Mo., 6. Mai 2019 um 20:43 Uhr schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau > > > >> > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Well im happy with the spi option but since it would be in impl > > not > > > >> sure > > > >> > > we > > > >> > > > need to slow down the boot instead of hardcoding it. Or did you > > > >> mean in > > > >> > > > term of codepath but still bypassing service loader? > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Side note: we should align reflection on xbean which supports > > meta > > > >> > > > annotation and potentially aliasing, this is a bug between > > scanning > > > >> and > > > >> > > > runtime model we have today - see @Meta or @Metaroot support in > > > >> xbean. > > > >> > > That > > > >> > > > said it is another topic ;). > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Le lun. 6 mai 2019 à 15:45, Mark Struberg > > <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> > > > >> a > > > >> > > > écrit : > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Hmm, nah, too memory intense and slower than the other > > solution > > > >> I'd > > > >> > > say. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > LieGrue, > > > >> > > > > strub > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Am 06.05.2019 um 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 > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 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, 14:06 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? > > > >> > > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
