On 29 Mar 2011, at 13:29, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:

> 
>> I thought the plan was for JBDS to natively understand Solder annotations to 
>> overcome this problem.
> 
> That does not solve the problems.
> 
> We got two of them:
> 
> 1) finding which jar's to scan (haven't checked this but using the service 
> declaration in META-INF might be enough)

I think it should

> 
> 2) when scanning the jar knowing which classes in the jar's that looks like 
> compliant CDI beans really aren't beans.

I think this is simple. If it has beans.xml, as normal. If it doesn't look for 
Solder annotations and register those beans...

> 
>> I really don't think that forcing some xml file on extension developers is 
>> very clever - either they would have to use this as the canonical source of 
>> info in which case we're back to programming in XML and it doesn't look good 
>> when people ask for examples of using CDI extensions, or we have to keep 
>> this stuff in sync.
> 
> Since the annotations aren't descriptive enough we'll need to come up with 
> something ;)

I think we need to revisit why the annotations aren't descriptive enough...

> 
> /max
> 
>> 
>> On 24 Mar 2011, at 20:56, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Talking with Seam/CDI tooling team at EclipseCon and we are still in the 
>>> dark on how tooling are supposed to identify CDI extensions that are 
>>> registered programmatically and often does not have a beans.xml to "mark" 
>>> them.
>>> 
>>> Today we do it by simply scanning jars with *weld*.jar naming pattern (very 
>>> brittle and not good for 3rd party extensions).
>>> 
>>> Furthermore we also have a list of classes to include/exclude since some 
>>> components in these jars aren't CDI compliant.
>>> 
>>> How do we go about identifying these things ?
>>> 
>>> The idea discussed with Dan/Pete on this topic previously were to add a 
>>> design-beans.xml
>>> and use that as a marker + list the classes we should load/configure as 
>>> possible injection/navigation candidates in the tooling.
>>> 
>>> I was hoping this were settled before Seam 3 GA but it seem to fallen 
>>> through the cracks ?
>>> 
>>> Something I missed ? 
>>> 
>>> /max
>>> http://about.me/maxandersen
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> seam-dev mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
>> 
> 
> /max
> http://about.me/maxandersen
> 
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
seam-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev

Reply via email to