Thanks for the feedback! It's good that other people take a look at this code before we put it in Wicket.
I don't understand the problem with @ConversationScoped. What do you mean with non-portable? Portable to what? AFAIK the conversation scope is part of the CDI spec and the current implementation in wicket-cdi works just fine, at least it does so for us. From what I understand we use it the way it should be used. Best regards, Emond On Tuesday 17 April 2012 08:57:37 Mark Struberg wrote: > A possible solution scenario: > > > a.) write an own @WicketConversationScoped scope + Context implementation > which especially fits wicket, supports your browser tab handling, > conversation propagation etc. This will fully portable and you have ALL the > functionality fully in your own hands! > > > b.) write a small extension which uses the @Observes ProcessAnnotatedType. > In this Extension you can easily remove all cdi @ConversationScoped > annotations and replace them via your very own @WicketConversation at > container startup. Just modify the AnnotatedType as you need. > > The result is that a user can either use @WicketConversationScoped or the > CDI @ConversationScoped but both will be handled as your own wicket > conversations. > > You might also implement your own pendant to > javax.enterprise.context.Conversation which is the interface to control the > conversation lifecycle from within an application. I don't think that you > need to support the built-in Conversation control. The important point is > imo that people can reuse components which are annotated with > @ConversationScoped. For them it would make no difference if the > non-working CDI conversation or your own wicket conversation Context > implementation does the actual work underneath. > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Cc: > > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:29 AM > > Subject: Re: wicket-cdi > > > > Whoops, clicked send to quickly ^^ > > > > s/ > > I try to get > > / > > > > I try to get a push request done until the weekend. > > / > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > >> From: Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > >> Cc: > >> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:18 AM > >> Subject: wicket-cdi > >> > >> Hi folks! > >> > >> I've quickly checked the wicket-cdi project on github and it looks like > > > > a > > > >> good start. > >> > >> I'd just change a few tiny bits > >> > >> 1.) use org.apache.geronimo.specs packages instead of javax.* packages > > > > because > > > >> of license reasons > >> > >> 2.) drop the CDI conversation support. To be honest (as a CDI EG member) > > > > The > > > >> built-in CDI Conversation is not that useful as it has quite a few > >> flaws, > > > > no > > > >> control api, etc. > >> > >> It might be better to introduce an own portable WicketConversation which > >> supports the wicket browser-tab handling. Having a non-portable > > > > conversation > > > >> support is imo a no-go. This will most probably not even run on future > >> Weld > >> > >> containers... > >> > >> > >> 3.) Please add a profile for Apache OpenWebBeans as well. Just to make > >> sure > > > > your > > > >> project is really portable. > >> > >> I try to get > >> > >> > >> txs and LieGrue, > >> strub
