Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
+1 Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-02-23 23:31 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko : > Hmm. So i would just start with 1) and we can continue our discussion after > the poll. Ok? > > > 2014-02-23 23:28 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > >> wonder if 2 is really a *public* question once 1 is decided >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> 2014-02-23 23:26 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko > >: >> > Shoudln't we do 2 polls? >> > >> > 1) Should we introduce a global qualifier instead @web? If yes, which >> name? >> > 2) Alternative for JsfPhaseListener? >> > - keep it as it is >> > - just rename it as it redudant >> > - use the global qualifier + introduce a second annotation for >> setting >> > the ordinal >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-23 23:21 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : >> > >> >> maybe we can do a public poll? >> >> >> >> 1) Keep it like it >> >> 2) @DeltaSpike >> >> 3) ordinal() >> >> 4) other? >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-02-23 23:18 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> >> >: >> >> > If it was agreed, we should leave @JsfPhaseListener as it is... >> >> > >> >> > Sorry if i'm a bit annoying but... >> >> > I still like the idea of a global qualifier instead @Web. >> >> > As Romain said, it would see it as an namespace -> >> >> > @Inject @DeltaSpike ServletContext context >> >> > looks good. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > 2014-02-23 23:01 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> >: >> >> > >> >> >> at other parts you specify an artifact with an interface, >> annotation,... >> >> >> and at the same point (if possible) you are able to specify the >> ordinal >> >> >> (without an extra annotation). >> >> >> that's easier for users and therefore we agreed on it in the >> beginning. >> >> >> >> >> >> regards, >> >> >> gerhard >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.irian.at >> >> >> >> >> >> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - >> >> >> JavaEE Consulting, Development and >> >> >> Courses in English and German >> >> >> >> >> >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-02-23 22:48 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> >> >> >: >> >> >> >> >> >> > which consistency gerhard? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 2014-02-23 22:45 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> >> >: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > independent of the name, we would break the consistency. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > regards, >> >> >> > > gerhard >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > http://www.irian.at >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - >> >> >> > > JavaEE Consulting, Development and >> >> >> > > Courses in English and German >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > 2014-02-23 22:40 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > using javax.* from deltaspike is quite ambiguous: is it a DS >> >> behavior >> >> >> > > > or a spec one? I'm no opposed Priority but in >> >> >> > > > org.apache.deltaspile...Priority >> >> >> > > > Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> >> > > > Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> >> > > > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> >> > > > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> >> > > > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > 2014-02-23 22:34 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> >> >> > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> >> >> > > > >: >> >> >> > > > > Could you explain this? I can't follow you. >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > 2014-02-23 22:23 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com >> >> >> > >: >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> I'd prefer something more explicit. Just changing the >> package >> >> >> would >> >> >> > be >> >> >> > > > >> enough for me >> >> >> > > > >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> >> > > > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> >> > > > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> >> > > > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> >> > > > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> 2014-02-23 22:17 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> >> >> > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> >> >> > > > >> >: >> >> >> > > > >> > Hmm... >> >> >> > > > >> > We could clone it for JEE6 support and handle both >> >> annotations >> >> >> for >> >> >> > > > >> backward >> >> >> > > > >> > compatibility. >> >> >> > > > >> >
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
Hmm. So i would just start with 1) and we can continue our discussion after the poll. Ok? 2014-02-23 23:28 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > wonder if 2 is really a *public* question once 1 is decided > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2014-02-23 23:26 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko >: > > Shoudln't we do 2 polls? > > > > 1) Should we introduce a global qualifier instead @web? If yes, which > name? > > 2) Alternative for JsfPhaseListener? > > - keep it as it is > > - just rename it as it redudant > > - use the global qualifier + introduce a second annotation for > setting > > the ordinal > > > > > > > > > > 2014-02-23 23:21 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > > > >> maybe we can do a public poll? > >> > >> 1) Keep it like it > >> 2) @DeltaSpike > >> 3) ordinal() > >> 4) other? > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014-02-23 23:18 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > >> >: > >> > If it was agreed, we should leave @JsfPhaseListener as it is... > >> > > >> > Sorry if i'm a bit annoying but... > >> > I still like the idea of a global qualifier instead @Web. > >> > As Romain said, it would see it as an namespace -> > >> > @Inject @DeltaSpike ServletContext context > >> > looks good. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > 2014-02-23 23:01 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > >> >: > >> > > >> >> at other parts you specify an artifact with an interface, > annotation,... > >> >> and at the same point (if possible) you are able to specify the > ordinal > >> >> (without an extra annotation). > >> >> that's easier for users and therefore we agreed on it in the > beginning. > >> >> > >> >> regards, > >> >> gerhard > >> >> > >> >> http://www.irian.at > >> >> > >> >> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - > >> >> JavaEE Consulting, Development and > >> >> Courses in English and German > >> >> > >> >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2014-02-23 22:48 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > >> >> >: > >> >> > >> >> > which consistency gerhard? > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > 2014-02-23 22:45 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > >> >> >: > >> >> > > >> >> > > independent of the name, we would break the consistency. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > regards, > >> >> > > gerhard > >> >> > > > >> >> > > http://www.irian.at > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - > >> >> > > JavaEE Consulting, Development and > >> >> > > Courses in English and German > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > 2014-02-23 22:40 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > using javax.* from deltaspike is quite ambiguous: is it a DS > >> behavior > >> >> > > > or a spec one? I'm no opposed Priority but in > >> >> > > > org.apache.deltaspile...Priority > >> >> > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> > > > Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >> > > > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >> > > > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >> > > > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > 2014-02-23 22:34 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > >> >> > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > >> >> > > > >: > >> >> > > > > Could you explain this? I can't follow you. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2014-02-23 22:23 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com > >> >> > >: > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> I'd prefer something more explicit. Just changing the > package > >> >> would > >> >> > be > >> >> > > > >> enough for me > >> >> > > > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> > > > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >> > > > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >> > > > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >> > > > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> 2014-02-23 22:17 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > >> >> > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > >> >> > > > >> >: > >> >> > > > >> > Hmm... > >> >> > > > >> > We could clone it for JEE6 support and handle both > >> annotations > >> >> for > >> >> > > > >> backward > >> >> > > > >> > compatibility. > >> >> > > > >> > Maybe we could also use it for other features (or later..) > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > 2014-02-23 22:14 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> >> > > rmannibu...@gmail.com > >> >> > > > >: > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> That's would be ambiguous with JavaEE 6 > >> >> > > > >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> > > > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
maybe we can do a public poll? 1) Keep it like it 2) @DeltaSpike 3) ordinal() 4) other? Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-02-23 23:18 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko : > If it was agreed, we should leave @JsfPhaseListener as it is... > > Sorry if i'm a bit annoying but... > I still like the idea of a global qualifier instead @Web. > As Romain said, it would see it as an namespace -> > @Inject @DeltaSpike ServletContext context > looks good. > > > > > 2014-02-23 23:01 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > >> at other parts you specify an artifact with an interface, annotation,... >> and at the same point (if possible) you are able to specify the ordinal >> (without an extra annotation). >> that's easier for users and therefore we agreed on it in the beginning. >> >> regards, >> gerhard >> >> http://www.irian.at >> >> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - >> JavaEE Consulting, Development and >> Courses in English and German >> >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >> >> >> >> 2014-02-23 22:48 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko > >: >> >> > which consistency gerhard? >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-23 22:45 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek > >: >> > >> > > independent of the name, we would break the consistency. >> > > >> > > regards, >> > > gerhard >> > > >> > > http://www.irian.at >> > > >> > > Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - >> > > JavaEE Consulting, Development and >> > > Courses in English and German >> > > >> > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > 2014-02-23 22:40 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : >> > > >> > > > using javax.* from deltaspike is quite ambiguous: is it a DS behavior >> > > > or a spec one? I'm no opposed Priority but in >> > > > org.apache.deltaspile...Priority >> > > > Romain Manni-Bucau >> > > > Twitter: @rmannibucau >> > > > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> > > > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> > > > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > 2014-02-23 22:34 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> > > > >: >> > > > > Could you explain this? I can't follow you. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > 2014-02-23 22:23 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com >> > >: >> > > > > >> > > > >> I'd prefer something more explicit. Just changing the package >> would >> > be >> > > > >> enough for me >> > > > >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> > > > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> > > > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> > > > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> > > > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> 2014-02-23 22:17 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> > > > >> >: >> > > > >> > Hmm... >> > > > >> > We could clone it for JEE6 support and handle both annotations >> for >> > > > >> backward >> > > > >> > compatibility. >> > > > >> > Maybe we could also use it for other features (or later..) >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > 2014-02-23 22:14 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> > > rmannibu...@gmail.com >> > > > >: >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >> That's would be ambiguous with JavaEE 6 >> > > > >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> > > > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> > > > >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> > > > >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> > > > >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> 2014-02-23 22:12 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> > > > >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> > > > >> >> >: >> > > > >> >> > What about reusing javax.annotation.Priority? >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > 2014-02-23 22:02 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < >> > > > >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> > > > >> >> >: >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> it's just a stereotype to get a better tool-support... >> > > > >> >> >> @Advanced is also a qualifier (at least in codi). >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> however, we need "ordinal" or we add @InvocationOrder as it >> > was >> > > in >> > > > >> codi. >> > > > >> >> >> once we do that, we break the consistency in that area. >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> regards, >> > > > >> >> >> gerhard >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> http://www.irian.at >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - >> > > > >> >> >> JavaEE Consulting, Development and >> > > > >> >> >> Courses in English and German >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> 2014-02-23 21:41 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> > > > >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> > > > >> >> >> >: >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > Another problem is that @web is a qualifier and >> > > > @JsfPhaseListener >> > > > >> is a >> > > > >> >> >> > stereotype and not a
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
wonder if 2 is really a *public* question once 1 is decided Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-02-23 23:26 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko : > Shoudln't we do 2 polls? > > 1) Should we introduce a global qualifier instead @web? If yes, which name? > 2) Alternative for JsfPhaseListener? > - keep it as it is > - just rename it as it redudant > - use the global qualifier + introduce a second annotation for setting > the ordinal > > > > > 2014-02-23 23:21 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > >> maybe we can do a public poll? >> >> 1) Keep it like it >> 2) @DeltaSpike >> 3) ordinal() >> 4) other? >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> 2014-02-23 23:18 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko > >: >> > If it was agreed, we should leave @JsfPhaseListener as it is... >> > >> > Sorry if i'm a bit annoying but... >> > I still like the idea of a global qualifier instead @Web. >> > As Romain said, it would see it as an namespace -> >> > @Inject @DeltaSpike ServletContext context >> > looks good. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-23 23:01 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek > >: >> > >> >> at other parts you specify an artifact with an interface, annotation,... >> >> and at the same point (if possible) you are able to specify the ordinal >> >> (without an extra annotation). >> >> that's easier for users and therefore we agreed on it in the beginning. >> >> >> >> regards, >> >> gerhard >> >> >> >> http://www.irian.at >> >> >> >> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - >> >> JavaEE Consulting, Development and >> >> Courses in English and German >> >> >> >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-02-23 22:48 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> >> >: >> >> >> >> > which consistency gerhard? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > 2014-02-23 22:45 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> >: >> >> > >> >> > > independent of the name, we would break the consistency. >> >> > > >> >> > > regards, >> >> > > gerhard >> >> > > >> >> > > http://www.irian.at >> >> > > >> >> > > Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - >> >> > > JavaEE Consulting, Development and >> >> > > Courses in English and German >> >> > > >> >> > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > 2014-02-23 22:40 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com>: >> >> > > >> >> > > > using javax.* from deltaspike is quite ambiguous: is it a DS >> behavior >> >> > > > or a spec one? I'm no opposed Priority but in >> >> > > > org.apache.deltaspile...Priority >> >> > > > Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > > > Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> > > > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> > > > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> > > > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > 2014-02-23 22:34 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> >> > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> >> > > > >: >> >> > > > > Could you explain this? I can't follow you. >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > 2014-02-23 22:23 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com >> >> > >: >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> I'd prefer something more explicit. Just changing the package >> >> would >> >> > be >> >> > > > >> enough for me >> >> > > > >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > > > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> > > > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> > > > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> > > > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> 2014-02-23 22:17 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> >> > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> >> > > > >> >: >> >> > > > >> > Hmm... >> >> > > > >> > We could clone it for JEE6 support and handle both >> annotations >> >> for >> >> > > > >> backward >> >> > > > >> > compatibility. >> >> > > > >> > Maybe we could also use it for other features (or later..) >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > 2014-02-23 22:14 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >> > > rmannibu...@gmail.com >> >> > > > >: >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> >> That's would be ambiguous with JavaEE 6 >> >> > > > >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > > > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> > > > >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> > > > >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> > > > >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> 2014-02-23 22:12 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> >> > > > >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> >> > > > >> >> >: >> >> > > > >> >> > What about reusing javax.annotation.Priority? >> >> > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > >> >> > 2014-02-23 22:02 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
Shoudln't we do 2 polls? 1) Should we introduce a global qualifier instead @web? If yes, which name? 2) Alternative for JsfPhaseListener? - keep it as it is - just rename it as it redudant - use the global qualifier + introduce a second annotation for setting the ordinal 2014-02-23 23:21 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > maybe we can do a public poll? > > 1) Keep it like it > 2) @DeltaSpike > 3) ordinal() > 4) other? > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2014-02-23 23:18 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko >: > > If it was agreed, we should leave @JsfPhaseListener as it is... > > > > Sorry if i'm a bit annoying but... > > I still like the idea of a global qualifier instead @Web. > > As Romain said, it would see it as an namespace -> > > @Inject @DeltaSpike ServletContext context > > looks good. > > > > > > > > > > 2014-02-23 23:01 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek >: > > > >> at other parts you specify an artifact with an interface, annotation,... > >> and at the same point (if possible) you are able to specify the ordinal > >> (without an extra annotation). > >> that's easier for users and therefore we agreed on it in the beginning. > >> > >> regards, > >> gerhard > >> > >> http://www.irian.at > >> > >> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - > >> JavaEE Consulting, Development and > >> Courses in English and German > >> > >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014-02-23 22:48 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > >> >: > >> > >> > which consistency gerhard? > >> > > >> > > >> > 2014-02-23 22:45 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > >> >: > >> > > >> > > independent of the name, we would break the consistency. > >> > > > >> > > regards, > >> > > gerhard > >> > > > >> > > http://www.irian.at > >> > > > >> > > Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - > >> > > JavaEE Consulting, Development and > >> > > Courses in English and German > >> > > > >> > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 2014-02-23 22:40 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > >> > > > >> > > > using javax.* from deltaspike is quite ambiguous: is it a DS > behavior > >> > > > or a spec one? I'm no opposed Priority but in > >> > > > org.apache.deltaspile...Priority > >> > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > > > Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> > > > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> > > > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> > > > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > 2014-02-23 22:34 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > >> > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > >> > > > >: > >> > > > > Could you explain this? I can't follow you. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > 2014-02-23 22:23 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com > >> > >: > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> I'd prefer something more explicit. Just changing the package > >> would > >> > be > >> > > > >> enough for me > >> > > > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > > > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> > > > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> > > > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> > > > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> 2014-02-23 22:17 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > >> > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > >> > > > >> >: > >> > > > >> > Hmm... > >> > > > >> > We could clone it for JEE6 support and handle both > annotations > >> for > >> > > > >> backward > >> > > > >> > compatibility. > >> > > > >> > Maybe we could also use it for other features (or later..) > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > 2014-02-23 22:14 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> > > rmannibu...@gmail.com > >> > > > >: > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> >> That's would be ambiguous with JavaEE 6 > >> > > > >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > > > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> > > > >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> > > > >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> > > > >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> 2014-02-23 22:12 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > >> > > > >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > >> > > > >> >> >: > >> > > > >> >> > What about reusing javax.annotation.Priority? > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > 2014-02-23 22:02 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > >> > > > >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > >> > > > >> >> >: > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> >> it's just a stereotype to get a better tool-support... > >> > > > >> >> >> @Advanced is also a qualifier (at least in codi). > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> however, we need "ordinal" or we add @InvocationOrder as > it > >> > was > >> > > in > >> > > > >> codi. > >> > > > >> >> >> once we do that, we break the consistency in that
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
If it was agreed, we should leave @JsfPhaseListener as it is... Sorry if i'm a bit annoying but... I still like the idea of a global qualifier instead @Web. As Romain said, it would see it as an namespace -> @Inject @DeltaSpike ServletContext context looks good. 2014-02-23 23:01 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > at other parts you specify an artifact with an interface, annotation,... > and at the same point (if possible) you are able to specify the ordinal > (without an extra annotation). > that's easier for users and therefore we agreed on it in the beginning. > > regards, > gerhard > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - > JavaEE Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > 2014-02-23 22:48 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko >: > > > which consistency gerhard? > > > > > > 2014-02-23 22:45 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek >: > > > > > independent of the name, we would break the consistency. > > > > > > regards, > > > gerhard > > > > > > http://www.irian.at > > > > > > Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - > > > JavaEE Consulting, Development and > > > Courses in English and German > > > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-02-23 22:40 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > > > > > > > using javax.* from deltaspike is quite ambiguous: is it a DS behavior > > > > or a spec one? I'm no opposed Priority but in > > > > org.apache.deltaspile...Priority > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > Twitter: @rmannibucau > > > > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > > > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > > > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-02-23 22:34 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > Could you explain this? I can't follow you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-02-23 22:23 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > >> I'd prefer something more explicit. Just changing the package > would > > be > > > > >> enough for me > > > > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > > > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > > > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > > > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> 2014-02-23 22:17 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > > > > >> >: > > > > >> > Hmm... > > > > >> > We could clone it for JEE6 support and handle both annotations > for > > > > >> backward > > > > >> > compatibility. > > > > >> > Maybe we could also use it for other features (or later..) > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > 2014-02-23 22:14 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < > > > rmannibu...@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> That's would be ambiguous with JavaEE 6 > > > > >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > > > >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > > > >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > > > >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> 2014-02-23 22:12 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > > > > >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > > > > >> >> >: > > > > >> >> > What about reusing javax.annotation.Priority? > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > 2014-02-23 22:02 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > > > > >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > > > > >> >> >: > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> it's just a stereotype to get a better tool-support... > > > > >> >> >> @Advanced is also a qualifier (at least in codi). > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> however, we need "ordinal" or we add @InvocationOrder as it > > was > > > in > > > > >> codi. > > > > >> >> >> once we do that, we break the consistency in that area. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> regards, > > > > >> >> >> gerhard > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> http://www.irian.at > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - > > > > >> >> >> JavaEE Consulting, Development and > > > > >> >> >> Courses in English and German > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> 2014-02-23 21:41 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > > > > >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > > > > >> >> >> >: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > Another problem is that @web is a qualifier and > > > > @JsfPhaseListener > > > > >> is a > > > > >> >> >> > stereotype and not a qualifier. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > So if we would change it, we must use different > annotations. > > > > Right? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > IMO > > > > >> >> >> > @Inject @DeltaSpike ServletContext context; > > > > >> >> >> > would be great as it's just like a namespace. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > For the @JsfPhaseListener, something like @Advanced would > be > > > > >> better. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
at other parts you specify an artifact with an interface, annotation,... and at the same point (if possible) you are able to specify the ordinal (without an extra annotation). that's easier for users and therefore we agreed on it in the beginning. regards, gerhard http://www.irian.at Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - JavaEE Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces 2014-02-23 22:48 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko : > which consistency gerhard? > > > 2014-02-23 22:45 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > > > independent of the name, we would break the consistency. > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > http://www.irian.at > > > > Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - > > JavaEE Consulting, Development and > > Courses in English and German > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > > > > > 2014-02-23 22:40 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > > > > > using javax.* from deltaspike is quite ambiguous: is it a DS behavior > > > or a spec one? I'm no opposed Priority but in > > > org.apache.deltaspile...Priority > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > Twitter: @rmannibucau > > > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-02-23 22:34 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > Could you explain this? I can't follow you. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-02-23 22:23 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau >: > > > > > > > >> I'd prefer something more explicit. Just changing the package would > be > > > >> enough for me > > > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> 2014-02-23 22:17 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > > > >> >: > > > >> > Hmm... > > > >> > We could clone it for JEE6 support and handle both annotations for > > > >> backward > > > >> > compatibility. > > > >> > Maybe we could also use it for other features (or later..) > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > 2014-02-23 22:14 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < > > rmannibu...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > >> > > > > >> >> That's would be ambiguous with JavaEE 6 > > > >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > > >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > > >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > > >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> 2014-02-23 22:12 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > > > >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > > > >> >> >: > > > >> >> > What about reusing javax.annotation.Priority? > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > 2014-02-23 22:02 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > > > >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > > > >> >> >: > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >> it's just a stereotype to get a better tool-support... > > > >> >> >> @Advanced is also a qualifier (at least in codi). > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> however, we need "ordinal" or we add @InvocationOrder as it > was > > in > > > >> codi. > > > >> >> >> once we do that, we break the consistency in that area. > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> regards, > > > >> >> >> gerhard > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> http://www.irian.at > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - > > > >> >> >> JavaEE Consulting, Development and > > > >> >> >> Courses in English and German > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> 2014-02-23 21:41 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > > > >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > > > >> >> >> >: > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > Another problem is that @web is a qualifier and > > > @JsfPhaseListener > > > >> is a > > > >> >> >> > stereotype and not a qualifier. > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > So if we would change it, we must use different annotations. > > > Right? > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > IMO > > > >> >> >> > @Inject @DeltaSpike ServletContext context; > > > >> >> >> > would be great as it's just like a namespace. > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > For the @JsfPhaseListener, something like @Advanced would be > > > >> better. > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > 2014-02-18 11:16 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > > > >> >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > > > >> >> >> > >: > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > IMO it's actually more expressive than any other names. > > Maybe > > > >> >> >> > > @DeltaSpikeManaged would be more impressive... > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > +1 @DeltaSpike then, before keeping the old > redudant/"ugly" > > > >> >> qualifiers. > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > 2014-02-18 10:51 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < > > > >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > >
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
which consistency gerhard? 2014-02-23 22:45 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > independent of the name, we would break the consistency. > > regards, > gerhard > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - > JavaEE Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > 2014-02-23 22:40 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > > > using javax.* from deltaspike is quite ambiguous: is it a DS behavior > > or a spec one? I'm no opposed Priority but in > > org.apache.deltaspile...Priority > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > Twitter: @rmannibucau > > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > > > > > 2014-02-23 22:34 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > > >: > > > Could you explain this? I can't follow you. > > > > > > > > > 2014-02-23 22:23 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > > > > > >> I'd prefer something more explicit. Just changing the package would be > > >> enough for me > > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 2014-02-23 22:17 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > > >> >: > > >> > Hmm... > > >> > We could clone it for JEE6 support and handle both annotations for > > >> backward > > >> > compatibility. > > >> > Maybe we could also use it for other features (or later..) > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > 2014-02-23 22:14 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com > > >: > > >> > > > >> >> That's would be ambiguous with JavaEE 6 > > >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> 2014-02-23 22:12 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > > >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > > >> >> >: > > >> >> > What about reusing javax.annotation.Priority? > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > 2014-02-23 22:02 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > > >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > > >> >> >: > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> it's just a stereotype to get a better tool-support... > > >> >> >> @Advanced is also a qualifier (at least in codi). > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> however, we need "ordinal" or we add @InvocationOrder as it was > in > > >> codi. > > >> >> >> once we do that, we break the consistency in that area. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> regards, > > >> >> >> gerhard > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> http://www.irian.at > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - > > >> >> >> JavaEE Consulting, Development and > > >> >> >> Courses in English and German > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> 2014-02-23 21:41 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > > >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > > >> >> >> >: > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Another problem is that @web is a qualifier and > > @JsfPhaseListener > > >> is a > > >> >> >> > stereotype and not a qualifier. > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > So if we would change it, we must use different annotations. > > Right? > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > IMO > > >> >> >> > @Inject @DeltaSpike ServletContext context; > > >> >> >> > would be great as it's just like a namespace. > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > For the @JsfPhaseListener, something like @Advanced would be > > >> better. > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > 2014-02-18 11:16 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > > >> >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > > >> >> >> > >: > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > IMO it's actually more expressive than any other names. > Maybe > > >> >> >> > > @DeltaSpikeManaged would be more impressive... > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > +1 @DeltaSpike then, before keeping the old redudant/"ugly" > > >> >> qualifiers. > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > 2014-02-18 10:51 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < > > >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > +1 kind of tradeoff > > >> >> >> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> >> >> > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > >> >> >> > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > >> >> >> > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > >> >> >> > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> 2014-02-18 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > > >> >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > > >> >> >> > >: > > >> >> >> > >> > we haven't seen a nice name so far -> i would keep what > we > > >> have > > >> >> >> right > > >> >> >> > >> now > > >> >> >> > >> > (it's redundant, but at least a bit more expressive). > > >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > regards, > > >> >> >> > >> > gerhard > > >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
independent of the name, we would break the consistency. regards, gerhard http://www.irian.at Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - JavaEE Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces 2014-02-23 22:40 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > using javax.* from deltaspike is quite ambiguous: is it a DS behavior > or a spec one? I'm no opposed Priority but in > org.apache.deltaspile...Priority > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2014-02-23 22:34 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko >: > > Could you explain this? I can't follow you. > > > > > > 2014-02-23 22:23 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > > > >> I'd prefer something more explicit. Just changing the package would be > >> enough for me > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014-02-23 22:17 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > >> >: > >> > Hmm... > >> > We could clone it for JEE6 support and handle both annotations for > >> backward > >> > compatibility. > >> > Maybe we could also use it for other features (or later..) > >> > > >> > > >> > 2014-02-23 22:14 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau >: > >> > > >> >> That's would be ambiguous with JavaEE 6 > >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2014-02-23 22:12 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > >> >> >: > >> >> > What about reusing javax.annotation.Priority? > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > 2014-02-23 22:02 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > >> >> >: > >> >> > > >> >> >> it's just a stereotype to get a better tool-support... > >> >> >> @Advanced is also a qualifier (at least in codi). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> however, we need "ordinal" or we add @InvocationOrder as it was in > >> codi. > >> >> >> once we do that, we break the consistency in that area. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> regards, > >> >> >> gerhard > >> >> >> > >> >> >> http://www.irian.at > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - > >> >> >> JavaEE Consulting, Development and > >> >> >> Courses in English and German > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 2014-02-23 21:41 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > >> >> >> >: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Another problem is that @web is a qualifier and > @JsfPhaseListener > >> is a > >> >> >> > stereotype and not a qualifier. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > So if we would change it, we must use different annotations. > Right? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > IMO > >> >> >> > @Inject @DeltaSpike ServletContext context; > >> >> >> > would be great as it's just like a namespace. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > For the @JsfPhaseListener, something like @Advanced would be > >> better. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 2014-02-18 11:16 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > >> >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > >> >> >> > >: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > IMO it's actually more expressive than any other names. Maybe > >> >> >> > > @DeltaSpikeManaged would be more impressive... > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > +1 @DeltaSpike then, before keeping the old redudant/"ugly" > >> >> qualifiers. > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > 2014-02-18 10:51 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > +1 kind of tradeoff > >> >> >> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> >> > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >> >> > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >> >> > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >> >> > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> 2014-02-18 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > >> >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > >> >> >> > >: > >> >> >> > >> > we haven't seen a nice name so far -> i would keep what we > >> have > >> >> >> right > >> >> >> > >> now > >> >> >> > >> > (it's redundant, but at least a bit more expressive). > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > regards, > >> >> >> > >> > gerhard > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > 2014-02-18 10:20 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg < > strub...@yahoo.de>: > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> I do agree on @Managed not being very expressive. Think > about > >> >> the > >> >> >> > >> >> @ManagedBean disaster in JavaEE itself. 'Managed' is in > the > >> same > >> >> >> > >> ballpark > >> >> >> > >> >> like 'Class' or 'Object'. > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Managed by whom and w
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
using javax.* from deltaspike is quite ambiguous: is it a DS behavior or a spec one? I'm no opposed Priority but in org.apache.deltaspile...Priority Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-02-23 22:34 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko : > Could you explain this? I can't follow you. > > > 2014-02-23 22:23 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > >> I'd prefer something more explicit. Just changing the package would be >> enough for me >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> 2014-02-23 22:17 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko > >: >> > Hmm... >> > We could clone it for JEE6 support and handle both annotations for >> backward >> > compatibility. >> > Maybe we could also use it for other features (or later..) >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-23 22:14 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : >> > >> >> That's would be ambiguous with JavaEE 6 >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-02-23 22:12 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> >> >: >> >> > What about reusing javax.annotation.Priority? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > 2014-02-23 22:02 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> >: >> >> > >> >> >> it's just a stereotype to get a better tool-support... >> >> >> @Advanced is also a qualifier (at least in codi). >> >> >> >> >> >> however, we need "ordinal" or we add @InvocationOrder as it was in >> codi. >> >> >> once we do that, we break the consistency in that area. >> >> >> >> >> >> regards, >> >> >> gerhard >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.irian.at >> >> >> >> >> >> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - >> >> >> JavaEE Consulting, Development and >> >> >> Courses in English and German >> >> >> >> >> >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-02-23 21:41 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> >> >> >: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Another problem is that @web is a qualifier and @JsfPhaseListener >> is a >> >> >> > stereotype and not a qualifier. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > So if we would change it, we must use different annotations. Right? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > IMO >> >> >> > @Inject @DeltaSpike ServletContext context; >> >> >> > would be great as it's just like a namespace. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > For the @JsfPhaseListener, something like @Advanced would be >> better. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 2014-02-18 11:16 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> >> >> > >: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > IMO it's actually more expressive than any other names. Maybe >> >> >> > > @DeltaSpikeManaged would be more impressive... >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > +1 @DeltaSpike then, before keeping the old redudant/"ugly" >> >> qualifiers. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > 2014-02-18 10:51 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > +1 kind of tradeoff >> >> >> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> >> > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> >> > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> >> > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> >> > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> 2014-02-18 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < >> >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> >> > >: >> >> >> > >> > we haven't seen a nice name so far -> i would keep what we >> have >> >> >> right >> >> >> > >> now >> >> >> > >> > (it's redundant, but at least a bit more expressive). >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > regards, >> >> >> > >> > gerhard >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > 2014-02-18 10:20 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> >> I do agree on @Managed not being very expressive. Think about >> >> the >> >> >> > >> >> @ManagedBean disaster in JavaEE itself. 'Managed' is in the >> same >> >> >> > >> ballpark >> >> >> > >> >> like 'Class' or 'Object'. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> Managed by whom and what? >> >> >> > >> >> In that case I'd rather go with @DeltaSpike or keep @Web... >> >> >> > >> >> But I do not care that much about names... >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> LieGrue, >> >> >> > >> >> strub >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 10:15, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >> >> > >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> @Gerhard: yeah but managed is not expressive, doesnt give the >> >> >> origin >> >> >> > + >> >> >> > >> >> >is quite standard for jmxso i would avoid it.
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
Could you explain this? I can't follow you. 2014-02-23 22:23 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > I'd prefer something more explicit. Just changing the package would be > enough for me > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2014-02-23 22:17 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko >: > > Hmm... > > We could clone it for JEE6 support and handle both annotations for > backward > > compatibility. > > Maybe we could also use it for other features (or later..) > > > > > > 2014-02-23 22:14 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > > > >> That's would be ambiguous with JavaEE 6 > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014-02-23 22:12 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > >> >: > >> > What about reusing javax.annotation.Priority? > >> > > >> > > >> > 2014-02-23 22:02 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > >> >: > >> > > >> >> it's just a stereotype to get a better tool-support... > >> >> @Advanced is also a qualifier (at least in codi). > >> >> > >> >> however, we need "ordinal" or we add @InvocationOrder as it was in > codi. > >> >> once we do that, we break the consistency in that area. > >> >> > >> >> regards, > >> >> gerhard > >> >> > >> >> http://www.irian.at > >> >> > >> >> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - > >> >> JavaEE Consulting, Development and > >> >> Courses in English and German > >> >> > >> >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2014-02-23 21:41 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > >> >> >: > >> >> > >> >> > Another problem is that @web is a qualifier and @JsfPhaseListener > is a > >> >> > stereotype and not a qualifier. > >> >> > > >> >> > So if we would change it, we must use different annotations. Right? > >> >> > > >> >> > IMO > >> >> > @Inject @DeltaSpike ServletContext context; > >> >> > would be great as it's just like a namespace. > >> >> > > >> >> > For the @JsfPhaseListener, something like @Advanced would be > better. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > 2014-02-18 11:16 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > >> >> > >: > >> >> > > >> >> > > IMO it's actually more expressive than any other names. Maybe > >> >> > > @DeltaSpikeManaged would be more impressive... > >> >> > > > >> >> > > +1 @DeltaSpike then, before keeping the old redudant/"ugly" > >> qualifiers. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > 2014-02-18 10:51 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > +1 kind of tradeoff > >> >> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >> > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >> > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >> > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> 2014-02-18 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > >> >> > >: > >> >> > >> > we haven't seen a nice name so far -> i would keep what we > have > >> >> right > >> >> > >> now > >> >> > >> > (it's redundant, but at least a bit more expressive). > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > regards, > >> >> > >> > gerhard > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > 2014-02-18 10:20 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> I do agree on @Managed not being very expressive. Think about > >> the > >> >> > >> >> @ManagedBean disaster in JavaEE itself. 'Managed' is in the > same > >> >> > >> ballpark > >> >> > >> >> like 'Class' or 'Object'. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Managed by whom and what? > >> >> > >> >> In that case I'd rather go with @DeltaSpike or keep @Web... > >> >> > >> >> But I do not care that much about names... > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> LieGrue, > >> >> > >> >> strub > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 10:15, Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> >> > >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> @Gerhard: yeah but managed is not expressive, doesnt give the > >> >> origin > >> >> > + > >> >> > >> >> >is quite standard for jmxso i would avoid it. That said it > >> doesnt > >> >> > >> >> >bring any feature so i dont want to fight for a name. > >> >> > >> >> >Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> > >> >> >Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >> > >> >> >Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >> > >> >> >LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >> > >> >> >Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >2014-02-18 10:12 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > >> >> > >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: > >> >> > >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
I'd prefer something more explicit. Just changing the package would be enough for me Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-02-23 22:17 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko : > Hmm... > We could clone it for JEE6 support and handle both annotations for backward > compatibility. > Maybe we could also use it for other features (or later..) > > > 2014-02-23 22:14 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > >> That's would be ambiguous with JavaEE 6 >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> 2014-02-23 22:12 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko > >: >> > What about reusing javax.annotation.Priority? >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-23 22:02 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek > >: >> > >> >> it's just a stereotype to get a better tool-support... >> >> @Advanced is also a qualifier (at least in codi). >> >> >> >> however, we need "ordinal" or we add @InvocationOrder as it was in codi. >> >> once we do that, we break the consistency in that area. >> >> >> >> regards, >> >> gerhard >> >> >> >> http://www.irian.at >> >> >> >> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - >> >> JavaEE Consulting, Development and >> >> Courses in English and German >> >> >> >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-02-23 21:41 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> >> >: >> >> >> >> > Another problem is that @web is a qualifier and @JsfPhaseListener is a >> >> > stereotype and not a qualifier. >> >> > >> >> > So if we would change it, we must use different annotations. Right? >> >> > >> >> > IMO >> >> > @Inject @DeltaSpike ServletContext context; >> >> > would be great as it's just like a namespace. >> >> > >> >> > For the @JsfPhaseListener, something like @Advanced would be better. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > 2014-02-18 11:16 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> >> > >: >> >> > >> >> > > IMO it's actually more expressive than any other names. Maybe >> >> > > @DeltaSpikeManaged would be more impressive... >> >> > > >> >> > > +1 @DeltaSpike then, before keeping the old redudant/"ugly" >> qualifiers. >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > 2014-02-18 10:51 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com>: >> >> > > >> >> > > +1 kind of tradeoff >> >> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> 2014-02-18 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> > >: >> >> > >> > we haven't seen a nice name so far -> i would keep what we have >> >> right >> >> > >> now >> >> > >> > (it's redundant, but at least a bit more expressive). >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > regards, >> >> > >> > gerhard >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > 2014-02-18 10:20 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> I do agree on @Managed not being very expressive. Think about >> the >> >> > >> >> @ManagedBean disaster in JavaEE itself. 'Managed' is in the same >> >> > >> ballpark >> >> > >> >> like 'Class' or 'Object'. >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> Managed by whom and what? >> >> > >> >> In that case I'd rather go with @DeltaSpike or keep @Web... >> >> > >> >> But I do not care that much about names... >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> LieGrue, >> >> > >> >> strub >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 10:15, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >> > >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> @Gerhard: yeah but managed is not expressive, doesnt give the >> >> origin >> >> > + >> >> > >> >> >is quite standard for jmxso i would avoid it. That said it >> doesnt >> >> > >> >> >bring any feature so i dont want to fight for a name. >> >> > >> >> >Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > >> >> >Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> > >> >> >Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> > >> >> >LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> > >> >> >Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >2014-02-18 10:12 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < >> >> > >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: >> >> > >> >> >> @romain: >> >> > >> >> >> you will always have same/similar terms in different areas >> (see >> >> > e.g. >> >> > >> >> >> "message"). >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> regards, >> >> > >> >> >> gerhard >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
Hmm... We could clone it for JEE6 support and handle both annotations for backward compatibility. Maybe we could also use it for other features (or later..) 2014-02-23 22:14 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > That's would be ambiguous with JavaEE 6 > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2014-02-23 22:12 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko >: > > What about reusing javax.annotation.Priority? > > > > > > 2014-02-23 22:02 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek >: > > > >> it's just a stereotype to get a better tool-support... > >> @Advanced is also a qualifier (at least in codi). > >> > >> however, we need "ordinal" or we add @InvocationOrder as it was in codi. > >> once we do that, we break the consistency in that area. > >> > >> regards, > >> gerhard > >> > >> http://www.irian.at > >> > >> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - > >> JavaEE Consulting, Development and > >> Courses in English and German > >> > >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014-02-23 21:41 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > >> >: > >> > >> > Another problem is that @web is a qualifier and @JsfPhaseListener is a > >> > stereotype and not a qualifier. > >> > > >> > So if we would change it, we must use different annotations. Right? > >> > > >> > IMO > >> > @Inject @DeltaSpike ServletContext context; > >> > would be great as it's just like a namespace. > >> > > >> > For the @JsfPhaseListener, something like @Advanced would be better. > >> > > >> > > >> > 2014-02-18 11:16 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > >> > >: > >> > > >> > > IMO it's actually more expressive than any other names. Maybe > >> > > @DeltaSpikeManaged would be more impressive... > >> > > > >> > > +1 @DeltaSpike then, before keeping the old redudant/"ugly" > qualifiers. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 2014-02-18 10:51 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > >> > > > >> > > +1 kind of tradeoff > >> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014-02-18 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > >> > >: > >> > >> > we haven't seen a nice name so far -> i would keep what we have > >> right > >> > >> now > >> > >> > (it's redundant, but at least a bit more expressive). > >> > >> > > >> > >> > regards, > >> > >> > gerhard > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > 2014-02-18 10:20 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> I do agree on @Managed not being very expressive. Think about > the > >> > >> >> @ManagedBean disaster in JavaEE itself. 'Managed' is in the same > >> > >> ballpark > >> > >> >> like 'Class' or 'Object'. > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> Managed by whom and what? > >> > >> >> In that case I'd rather go with @DeltaSpike or keep @Web... > >> > >> >> But I do not care that much about names... > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> LieGrue, > >> > >> >> strub > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 10:15, Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> > >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> @Gerhard: yeah but managed is not expressive, doesnt give the > >> origin > >> > + > >> > >> >> >is quite standard for jmxso i would avoid it. That said it > doesnt > >> > >> >> >bring any feature so i dont want to fight for a name. > >> > >> >> >Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > >> >> >Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> > >> >> >Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> > >> >> >LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> > >> >> >Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> >2014-02-18 10:12 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > >> > >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: > >> > >> >> >> @romain: > >> > >> >> >> you will always have same/similar terms in different areas > (see > >> > e.g. > >> > >> >> >> "message"). > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> regards, > >> > >> >> >> gerhard > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
That's would be ambiguous with JavaEE 6 Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-02-23 22:12 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko : > What about reusing javax.annotation.Priority? > > > 2014-02-23 22:02 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > >> it's just a stereotype to get a better tool-support... >> @Advanced is also a qualifier (at least in codi). >> >> however, we need "ordinal" or we add @InvocationOrder as it was in codi. >> once we do that, we break the consistency in that area. >> >> regards, >> gerhard >> >> http://www.irian.at >> >> Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - >> JavaEE Consulting, Development and >> Courses in English and German >> >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >> >> >> >> 2014-02-23 21:41 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko > >: >> >> > Another problem is that @web is a qualifier and @JsfPhaseListener is a >> > stereotype and not a qualifier. >> > >> > So if we would change it, we must use different annotations. Right? >> > >> > IMO >> > @Inject @DeltaSpike ServletContext context; >> > would be great as it's just like a namespace. >> > >> > For the @JsfPhaseListener, something like @Advanced would be better. >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-18 11:16 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com >> > >: >> > >> > > IMO it's actually more expressive than any other names. Maybe >> > > @DeltaSpikeManaged would be more impressive... >> > > >> > > +1 @DeltaSpike then, before keeping the old redudant/"ugly" qualifiers. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > 2014-02-18 10:51 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : >> > > >> > > +1 kind of tradeoff >> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> 2014-02-18 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> > >: >> > >> > we haven't seen a nice name so far -> i would keep what we have >> right >> > >> now >> > >> > (it's redundant, but at least a bit more expressive). >> > >> > >> > >> > regards, >> > >> > gerhard >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-18 10:20 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : >> > >> > >> > >> >> I do agree on @Managed not being very expressive. Think about the >> > >> >> @ManagedBean disaster in JavaEE itself. 'Managed' is in the same >> > >> ballpark >> > >> >> like 'Class' or 'Object'. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Managed by whom and what? >> > >> >> In that case I'd rather go with @DeltaSpike or keep @Web... >> > >> >> But I do not care that much about names... >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> LieGrue, >> > >> >> strub >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 10:15, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> > >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> >> > >> >> @Gerhard: yeah but managed is not expressive, doesnt give the >> origin >> > + >> > >> >> >is quite standard for jmxso i would avoid it. That said it doesnt >> > >> >> >bring any feature so i dont want to fight for a name. >> > >> >> >Romain Manni-Bucau >> > >> >> >Twitter: @rmannibucau >> > >> >> >Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> > >> >> >LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> > >> >> >Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> >2014-02-18 10:12 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < >> > >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: >> > >> >> >> @romain: >> > >> >> >> you will always have same/similar terms in different areas (see >> > e.g. >> > >> >> >> "message"). >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> regards, >> > >> >> >> gerhard >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
What about reusing javax.annotation.Priority? 2014-02-23 22:02 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > it's just a stereotype to get a better tool-support... > @Advanced is also a qualifier (at least in codi). > > however, we need "ordinal" or we add @InvocationOrder as it was in codi. > once we do that, we break the consistency in that area. > > regards, > gerhard > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - > JavaEE Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > 2014-02-23 21:41 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko >: > > > Another problem is that @web is a qualifier and @JsfPhaseListener is a > > stereotype and not a qualifier. > > > > So if we would change it, we must use different annotations. Right? > > > > IMO > > @Inject @DeltaSpike ServletContext context; > > would be great as it's just like a namespace. > > > > For the @JsfPhaseListener, something like @Advanced would be better. > > > > > > 2014-02-18 11:16 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko < > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > IMO it's actually more expressive than any other names. Maybe > > > @DeltaSpikeManaged would be more impressive... > > > > > > +1 @DeltaSpike then, before keeping the old redudant/"ugly" qualifiers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-02-18 10:51 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > > > > > > +1 kind of tradeoff > > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 2014-02-18 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > > >: > > >> > we haven't seen a nice name so far -> i would keep what we have > right > > >> now > > >> > (it's redundant, but at least a bit more expressive). > > >> > > > >> > regards, > > >> > gerhard > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > 2014-02-18 10:20 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > > >> > > > >> >> I do agree on @Managed not being very expressive. Think about the > > >> >> @ManagedBean disaster in JavaEE itself. 'Managed' is in the same > > >> ballpark > > >> >> like 'Class' or 'Object'. > > >> >> > > >> >> Managed by whom and what? > > >> >> In that case I'd rather go with @DeltaSpike or keep @Web... > > >> >> But I do not care that much about names... > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> LieGrue, > > >> >> strub > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 10:15, Romain Manni-Bucau < > > >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> @Gerhard: yeah but managed is not expressive, doesnt give the > origin > > + > > >> >> >is quite standard for jmxso i would avoid it. That said it doesnt > > >> >> >bring any feature so i dont want to fight for a name. > > >> >> >Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> >> >Twitter: @rmannibucau > > >> >> >Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > >> >> >LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > >> >> >Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >2014-02-18 10:12 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > > >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: > > >> >> >> @romain: > > >> >> >> you will always have same/similar terms in different areas (see > > e.g. > > >> >> >> "message"). > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> regards, > > >> >> >> gerhard > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
it's just a stereotype to get a better tool-support... @Advanced is also a qualifier (at least in codi). however, we need "ordinal" or we add @InvocationOrder as it was in codi. once we do that, we break the consistency in that area. regards, gerhard http://www.irian.at Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse - JavaEE Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces 2014-02-23 21:41 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko : > Another problem is that @web is a qualifier and @JsfPhaseListener is a > stereotype and not a qualifier. > > So if we would change it, we must use different annotations. Right? > > IMO > @Inject @DeltaSpike ServletContext context; > would be great as it's just like a namespace. > > For the @JsfPhaseListener, something like @Advanced would be better. > > > 2014-02-18 11:16 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko >: > > > IMO it's actually more expressive than any other names. Maybe > > @DeltaSpikeManaged would be more impressive... > > > > +1 @DeltaSpike then, before keeping the old redudant/"ugly" qualifiers. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-02-18 10:51 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > > > > +1 kind of tradeoff > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014-02-18 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek >: > >> > we haven't seen a nice name so far -> i would keep what we have right > >> now > >> > (it's redundant, but at least a bit more expressive). > >> > > >> > regards, > >> > gerhard > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > 2014-02-18 10:20 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > >> > > >> >> I do agree on @Managed not being very expressive. Think about the > >> >> @ManagedBean disaster in JavaEE itself. 'Managed' is in the same > >> ballpark > >> >> like 'Class' or 'Object'. > >> >> > >> >> Managed by whom and what? > >> >> In that case I'd rather go with @DeltaSpike or keep @Web... > >> >> But I do not care that much about names... > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> LieGrue, > >> >> strub > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 10:15, Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> @Gerhard: yeah but managed is not expressive, doesnt give the origin > + > >> >> >is quite standard for jmxso i would avoid it. That said it doesnt > >> >> >bring any feature so i dont want to fight for a name. > >> >> >Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> >Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >> >Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >> >LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >> >Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >2014-02-18 10:12 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> @romain: > >> >> >> you will always have same/similar terms in different areas (see > e.g. > >> >> >> "message"). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> regards, > >> >> >> gerhard > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > > > > >
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
Another problem is that @web is a qualifier and @JsfPhaseListener is a stereotype and not a qualifier. So if we would change it, we must use different annotations. Right? IMO @Inject @DeltaSpike ServletContext context; would be great as it's just like a namespace. For the @JsfPhaseListener, something like @Advanced would be better. 2014-02-18 11:16 GMT+01:00 Thomas Andraschko : > IMO it's actually more expressive than any other names. Maybe > @DeltaSpikeManaged would be more impressive... > > +1 @DeltaSpike then, before keeping the old redudant/"ugly" qualifiers. > > > > > > 2014-02-18 10:51 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > > +1 kind of tradeoff >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> 2014-02-18 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : >> > we haven't seen a nice name so far -> i would keep what we have right >> now >> > (it's redundant, but at least a bit more expressive). >> > >> > regards, >> > gerhard >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-18 10:20 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : >> > >> >> I do agree on @Managed not being very expressive. Think about the >> >> @ManagedBean disaster in JavaEE itself. 'Managed' is in the same >> ballpark >> >> like 'Class' or 'Object'. >> >> >> >> Managed by whom and what? >> >> In that case I'd rather go with @DeltaSpike or keep @Web... >> >> But I do not care that much about names... >> >> >> >> >> >> LieGrue, >> >> strub >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 10:15, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> @Gerhard: yeah but managed is not expressive, doesnt give the origin + >> >> >is quite standard for jmxso i would avoid it. That said it doesnt >> >> >bring any feature so i dont want to fight for a name. >> >> >Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> >Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> >Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> >LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> >Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >2014-02-18 10:12 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> @romain: >> >> >> you will always have same/similar terms in different areas (see e.g. >> >> >> "message"). >> >> >> >> >> >> regards, >> >> >> gerhard >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
IMO it's actually more expressive than any other names. Maybe @DeltaSpikeManaged would be more impressive... +1 @DeltaSpike then, before keeping the old redudant/"ugly" qualifiers. 2014-02-18 10:51 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau : > +1 kind of tradeoff > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2014-02-18 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > > we haven't seen a nice name so far -> i would keep what we have right now > > (it's redundant, but at least a bit more expressive). > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > > > > > 2014-02-18 10:20 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > > > >> I do agree on @Managed not being very expressive. Think about the > >> @ManagedBean disaster in JavaEE itself. 'Managed' is in the same > ballpark > >> like 'Class' or 'Object'. > >> > >> Managed by whom and what? > >> In that case I'd rather go with @DeltaSpike or keep @Web... > >> But I do not care that much about names... > >> > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 10:15, Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> @Gerhard: yeah but managed is not expressive, doesnt give the origin + > >> >is quite standard for jmxso i would avoid it. That said it doesnt > >> >bring any feature so i dont want to fight for a name. > >> >Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >2014-02-18 10:12 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek < > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: > >> >> @romain: > >> >> you will always have same/similar terms in different areas (see e.g. > >> >> "message"). > >> >> > >> >> regards, > >> >> gerhard > >> >> > >> >> > >> >
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
+1 kind of tradeoff Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-02-18 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > we haven't seen a nice name so far -> i would keep what we have right now > (it's redundant, but at least a bit more expressive). > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2014-02-18 10:20 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > >> I do agree on @Managed not being very expressive. Think about the >> @ManagedBean disaster in JavaEE itself. 'Managed' is in the same ballpark >> like 'Class' or 'Object'. >> >> Managed by whom and what? >> In that case I'd rather go with @DeltaSpike or keep @Web... >> But I do not care that much about names... >> >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 10:15, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> @Gerhard: yeah but managed is not expressive, doesnt give the origin + >> >is quite standard for jmxso i would avoid it. That said it doesnt >> >bring any feature so i dont want to fight for a name. >> >Romain Manni-Bucau >> >Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > >> > >> > >> >2014-02-18 10:12 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : >> >> @romain: >> >> you will always have same/similar terms in different areas (see e.g. >> >> "message"). >> >> >> >> regards, >> >> gerhard >> >> >> >> >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
we haven't seen a nice name so far -> i would keep what we have right now (it's redundant, but at least a bit more expressive). regards, gerhard 2014-02-18 10:20 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg : > I do agree on @Managed not being very expressive. Think about the > @ManagedBean disaster in JavaEE itself. 'Managed' is in the same ballpark > like 'Class' or 'Object'. > > Managed by whom and what? > In that case I'd rather go with @DeltaSpike or keep @Web... > But I do not care that much about names... > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 10:15, Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > @Gerhard: yeah but managed is not expressive, doesnt give the origin + > >is quite standard for jmxso i would avoid it. That said it doesnt > >bring any feature so i dont want to fight for a name. > >Romain Manni-Bucau > >Twitter: @rmannibucau > >Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > > > > >2014-02-18 10:12 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : > >> @romain: > >> you will always have same/similar terms in different areas (see e.g. > >> "message"). > >> > >> regards, > >> gerhard > >> > >> >
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
I do agree on @Managed not being very expressive. Think about the @ManagedBean disaster in JavaEE itself. 'Managed' is in the same ballpark like 'Class' or 'Object'. Managed by whom and what? In that case I'd rather go with @DeltaSpike or keep @Web... But I do not care that much about names... LieGrue, strub On Tuesday, 18 February 2014, 10:15, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: @Gerhard: yeah but managed is not expressive, doesnt give the origin + >is quite standard for jmxso i would avoid it. That said it doesnt >bring any feature so i dont want to fight for a name. >Romain Manni-Bucau >Twitter: @rmannibucau >Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > >2014-02-18 10:12 GMT+01:00 Gerhard Petracek : >> @romain: >> you will always have same/similar terms in different areas (see e.g. >> "message"). >> >> regards, >> gerhard >> >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
>> > > > > >> > > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek < >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> >> >: >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > it was just one of several possibilities you >> >> have. >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > in any case, the special case you mentioned is >> >> still >> >> >> >> easy >> >> >> >> >> > > enough >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > there >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > is no issue/blocker imo. >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > regards, >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > gerhard >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> so didnt get your comment on decorators... >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> LinkedIn: >> http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek < >> >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> >> >> >: >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > @romain: >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > you should do the wrapping like you would >> do >> >> it >> >> >> >> without >> >> >> >> >> > cdi >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> anyway. >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > regards, >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > gerhard >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> @gerhard: @Decorator is broken in 85% of >> the >> >> >> case >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> >> > > > doesn't >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> work
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
;> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> so didnt get your comment on decorators... > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> LinkedIn: > http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek < > >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > >> >> >> >: > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > @romain: > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > you should do the wrapping like you would > do > >> it > >> >> >> without > >> >> >> >> > cdi > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> anyway. > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > regards, > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > gerhard > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> @gerhard: @Decorator is broken in 85% of > the > >> >> case > >> >> >> and > >> >> >> >> > > > doesn't > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> work > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> with producers IIRC > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> LinkedIn: > >> http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek < > >> >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > >> >> >> >> >: > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > @romain: > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > you can use e.g. @Decorator in such > special > >> >> >> cases or > >> >> >> >> > > just > >> >> >> >> > > > do > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> the > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> wrapping > >> &
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > regards, >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > gerhard >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> @gerhard: @Decorator is broken in 85% of the >> >> case >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> > > > doesn't >> >> >> >> > > > > >> work >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> with producers IIRC >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> LinkedIn: >> http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek < >> >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> >> >> >: >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > @romain: >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > you can use e.g. @Decorator in such special >> >> >> cases or >> >> >> >> > > just >> >> >> >> > > > do >> >> >> >> > > > > >> the >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> wrapping >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > like you would without cdi. >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > regards, >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > gerhard >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> yes and no, depend what you do of it, the >> >> point >> >> >> is >> >> >> >> if >> >> >> >> > > you >> >> >> >> > > > > >> base >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > your >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> app on CDI (as much as possible I mean) >> and >> >> it >> >> >> >> starts >> >> >> >> > > to >> >> >> >> > > > be >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > common, >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> you can put logic in these producers, >> >> typically >> >> >> >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
gt; > >> > > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek < > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > >> >: > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > it was just one of several possibilities you > have. > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > in any case, the special case you mentioned is > still > >> >> easy > >> >> >> > > enough > >> >> >> > > > > -> > >> >> >> > > > > >> > there > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > is no issue/blocker imo. > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > regards, > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > gerhard > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> so didnt get your comment on decorators... > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek < > >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > >> >> >: > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > @romain: > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > you should do the wrapping like you would do > it > >> >> without > >> >> >> > cdi > >> >> >> > > > > >> anyway. > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > regards, > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > gerhard > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> @gerhard: @Decorator is broken in 85% of the > >> case > >> >> and > >> >> >> > > > doesn't > >> >> >> > > > > >> work > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> with producers IIRC > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> LinkedIn: > http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >> >> > > > > >&g
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
gt; > > > >> > > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek < >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> >: >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > @romain: >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > you should do the wrapping like you would do it >> >> without >> >> >> > cdi >> >> >> > > > > >> anyway. >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > regards, >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > gerhard >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> @gerhard: @Decorator is broken in 85% of the >> case >> >> and >> >> >> > > > doesn't >> >> >> > > > > >> work >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> with producers IIRC >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek < >> >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> >> >: >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > @romain: >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > you can use e.g. @Decorator in such special >> >> cases or >> >> >> > > just >> >> >> > > > do >> >> >> > > > > >> the >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> wrapping >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > like you would without cdi. >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > regards, >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > gerhard >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> yes and no, depend what you do of it, the >> point >> >> is >> >> >> if >> >> >> > > you >> >> >> > > > > >> base
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
t;> >> > > > > >> > > >> so didnt get your comment on decorators... > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek < > > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > > >> >: > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > @romain: > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > you should do the wrapping like you would do it > > >> without > > >> >> > cdi > > >> >> > > > > >> anyway. > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > regards, > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > gerhard > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau < > > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> @gerhard: @Decorator is broken in 85% of the > > case > > >> and > > >> >> > > > doesn't > > >> >> > > > > >> work > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> with producers IIRC > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> LinkedIn: > http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek < > > >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > > >> >> >: > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > @romain: > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > you can use e.g. @Decorator in such special > > >> cases or > > >> >> > > just > > >> >> > > > do > > >> >> > > > > >> the > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> wrapping > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > like you would without cdi. > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > regards, > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > gerhard > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
t; >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> @gerhard: @Decorator is broken in 85% of the > case > >> and > >> >> > > > doesn't > >> >> > > > > >> work > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> with producers IIRC > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek < > >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > >> >> >: > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > @romain: > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > you can use e.g. @Decorator in such special > >> cases or > >> >> > > just > >> >> > > > do > >> >> > > > > >> the > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> wrapping > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > like you would without cdi. > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > regards, > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > gerhard > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> yes and no, depend what you do of it, the > point > >> is > >> >> if > >> >> > > you > >> >> > > > > >> base > >> >> > > > > >> > > your > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> app on CDI (as much as possible I mean) and > it > >> >> starts > >> >> > > to > >> >> > > > be > >> >> > > > > >> > > common, > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> you can put logic in these producers, > typically > >> >> > > wrapping > >> >> > > > of > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> requests/responses (can be easier than using > >> >> filters) > >> >> > > and > >> >> > > > > in > >> >> > > > > >> > this > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> case > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> this is often not 1-1 replacement. I know it > is > >> >> > doable > >> >> > > > but > >> >> > > > > >> needs > >> >> > > > > >> > > to > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> update the app and can break "big apps" where > >> you > >> >> > > > aggregate > >> >> > > > > >> > > multiple &
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
4/1/4 Gerhard Petracek < >> gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> >: >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > @romain: >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > you can use e.g. @Decorator in such special >> cases or >> >> > > just >> >> > > > do >> >> > > > > >> the >> >> > > > > >> > > >> wrapping >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > like you would without cdi. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > regards, >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > gerhard >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> yes and no, depend what you do of it, the point >> is >> >> if >> >> > > you >> >> > > > > >> base >> >> > > > > >> > > your >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> app on CDI (as much as possible I mean) and it >> >> starts >> >> > > to >> >> > > > be >> >> > > > > >> > > common, >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> you can put logic in these producers, typically >> >> > > wrapping >> >> > > > of >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> requests/responses (can be easier than using >> >> filters) >> >> > > and >> >> > > > > in >> >> > > > > >> > this >> >> > > > > >> > > >> case >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> this is often not 1-1 replacement. I know it is >> >> > doable >> >> > > > but >> >> > > > > >> needs >> >> > > > > >> > > to >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> update the app and can break "big apps" where >> you >> >> > > > aggregate >> >> > > > > >> > > multiple >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> parts. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Having a namespace should be a best practise >> IMHO. >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek < >> >> > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com >> >> > > >: >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > @romain: >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > i don't see an issue here - if you add the >> >> > > > > >> ds-servlet-module, >> >> > > > > >> > > you >> >> > > > > >> > > >> just >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> drop >> >> > > > > >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
;> > > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> yes and no, depend what you do of it, the point > is > >> if > >> > > you > >> > > > > >> base > >> > > > > >> > > your > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> app on CDI (as much as possible I mean) and it > >> starts > >> > > to > >> > > > be > >> > > > > >> > > common, > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> you can put logic in these producers, typically > >> > > wrapping > >> > > > of > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> requests/responses (can be easier than using > >> filters) > >> > > and > >> > > > > in > >> > > > > >> > this > >> > > > > >> > > >> case > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> this is often not 1-1 replacement. I know it is > >> > doable > >> > > > but > >> > > > > >> needs > >> > > > > >> > > to > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> update the app and can break "big apps" where > you > >> > > > aggregate > >> > > > > >> > > multiple > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> parts. > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Having a namespace should be a best practise > IMHO. > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek < > >> > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > >> > > >: > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > @romain: > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > i don't see an issue here - if you add the > >> > > > > >> ds-servlet-module, > >> > > > > >> > > you > >> > > > > >> > > >> just > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> drop > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > your own producers (which overlap and should > do > >> the > >> > > > same > >> > > > > >> > > anyway). > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > regards, > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > gerhard > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> well in fact I saw a lot of cdi 1.0 app > >> producing > >> > > > http* > >> > > > > >> > objects > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> without qualifier cause it was missing in > cdi so > >> > > > > conflicts > >> > > > > >> > can > >> > > > > >> > > >> occurs > >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : >> > > > > >> > > >> > @romain: >> > > > > >> > > >> > you should do the wrapping like you would do it without >> > cdi >> > > > > >> anyway. >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > regards, >> > > > > >> > > >> > gerhard >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> @gerhard: @Decorator is broken in 85% of the case and >> > > > doesn't >> > > > > >> work >> > > > > >> > > >> >> with producers IIRC >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> > > > > >> > > >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> > > > > >> > > >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek > >: >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > @romain: >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > you can use e.g. @Decorator in such special cases or >> > > just >> > > > do >> > > > > >> the >> > > > > >> > > >> wrapping >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > like you would without cdi. >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > regards, >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > gerhard >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> yes and no, depend what you do of it, the point is >> if >> > > you >> > > > > >> base >> > > > > >> > > your >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> app on CDI (as much as possible I mean) and it >> starts >> > > to >> > > > be >> > > > > >> > > common, >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> you can put logic in these producers, typically >> > > wrapping >> > > > of >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> requests/responses (can be easier than using >> filters) >> > > and >> > > > > in >> > > > > >> > this >> > > > > >> > > >> case >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> this is often not 1-1 replacement. I know it is >> > doable >> > > > but >> > > > > >> needs >> > > > > >> > > to >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> update the app and can break "big apps" where you >> > > > aggregate >> > > > > >> > > multiple >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> parts. >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Hav
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
gt;> > > >> >> @gerhard: @Decorator is broken in 85% of the case and > > > > doesn't > > > > > >> work > > > > > >> > > >> >> with producers IIRC > > > > > >> > > >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > > >> > > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > > > > >> > > >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > > > > >> > > >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > > > > >> > > >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek >: > > > > > >> > > >> >> > @romain: > > > > > >> > > >> >> > you can use e.g. @Decorator in such special cases or > > > just > > > > do > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > >> wrapping > > > > > >> > > >> >> > like you would without cdi. > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> >> > regards, > > > > > >> > > >> >> > gerhard > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> yes and no, depend what you do of it, the point is > if > > > you > > > > > >> base > > > > > >> > > your > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> app on CDI (as much as possible I mean) and it > starts > > > to > > > > be > > > > > >> > > common, > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> you can put logic in these producers, typically > > > wrapping > > > > of > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> requests/responses (can be easier than using > filters) > > > and > > > > > in > > > > > >> > this > > > > > >> > > >> case > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> this is often not 1-1 replacement. I know it is > > doable > > > > but > > > > > >> needs > > > > > >> > > to > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> update the app and can break "big apps" where you > > > > aggregate > > > > > >> > > multiple > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> parts. > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Having a namespace should be a best practise IMHO. > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek < > > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > @romain: > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > i don't see an issue here - if you add the > > > > > >> ds-servlet-module, > > > > > >> > > you > > > > > >> > > >> just > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> drop > > > > > >> > > >> >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
t;> > > >> >> > like you would without cdi. > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > >> >> > regards, > > > > >> > > >> >> > gerhard > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> yes and no, depend what you do of it, the point is if > > you > > > > >> base > > > > >> > > your > > > > >> > > >> >> >> app on CDI (as much as possible I mean) and it starts > > to > > > be > > > > >> > > common, > > > > >> > > >> >> >> you can put logic in these producers, typically > > wrapping > > > of > > > > >> > > >> >> >> requests/responses (can be easier than using filters) > > and > > > > in > > > > >> > this > > > > >> > > >> case > > > > >> > > >> >> >> this is often not 1-1 replacement. I know it is > doable > > > but > > > > >> needs > > > > >> > > to > > > > >> > > >> >> >> update the app and can break "big apps" where you > > > aggregate > > > > >> > > multiple > > > > >> > > >> >> >> parts. > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Having a namespace should be a best practise IMHO. > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > > > >> > > >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek < > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > @romain: > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > i don't see an issue here - if you add the > > > > >> ds-servlet-module, > > > > >> > > you > > > > >> > > >> just > > > > >> > > >> >> >> drop > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > your own producers (which overlap and should do the > > > same > > > > >> > > anyway). > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > regards, > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > gerhard > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> well in fact I saw a lot of cdi 1.0 app producing > > > http* > > > > >> > objects > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> without qualifier cause it was missing in cdi so > > > > conflicts > > > > >> > can > > > > >> > > >> occurs > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> and are quite common > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> Blog: http://rman
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
> > >> >> >> requests/responses (can be easier than using filters) > and > > > in > > > >> > this > > > >> > > >> case > > > >> > > >> >> >> this is often not 1-1 replacement. I know it is doable > > but > > > >> needs > > > >> > > to > > > >> > > >> >> >> update the app and can break "big apps" where you > > aggregate > > > >> > > multiple > > > >> > > >> >> >> parts. > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> >> Having a namespace should be a best practise IMHO. > > > >> > > >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > > >> > > >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > > >> > > >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > > >> > > >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > > >> > > >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek >: > > > >> > > >> >> >> > @romain: > > > >> > > >> >> >> > i don't see an issue here - if you add the > > > >> ds-servlet-module, > > > >> > > you > > > >> > > >> just > > > >> > > >> >> >> drop > > > >> > > >> >> >> > your own producers (which overlap and should do the > > same > > > >> > > anyway). > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > regards, > > > >> > > >> >> >> > gerhard > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> well in fact I saw a lot of cdi 1.0 app producing > > http* > > > >> > objects > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> without qualifier cause it was missing in cdi so > > > conflicts > > > >> > can > > > >> > > >> occurs > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> and are quite common > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek < > gerhard.petra...@gmail.com > > >: > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > we had no qualifier for FacesContext (in codi, > > > >> seam3,...). > > > >> > > >> since it > > > >> > > >> >> >> used > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> to > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > be a common producer, we saw "compatibility > issues". > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > however, with a proper documentation (how to veto > > one > > > of > > > >> > > them), > > > >> > > >> no > > > >> > > >> >> >> user > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > (i'm aware of) had a real issue with it
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > > >> > > >> >> >> > @romain: > > >> > > >> >> >> > i don't see an issue here - if you add the > > >> ds-servlet-module, > > >> > > you > > >> > > >> just > > >> > > >> >> >> drop > > >> > > >> >> >> > your own producers (which overlap and should do the > same > > >> > > anyway). > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> >> > regards, > > >> > > >> >> >> > gerhard > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> well in fact I saw a lot of cdi 1.0 app producing > http* > > >> > objects > > >> > > >> >> >> >> without qualifier cause it was missing in cdi so > > conflicts > > >> > can > > >> > > >> occurs > > >> > > >> >> >> >> and are quite common > > >> > > >> >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> > > >> >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > >> > > >> >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > >> > > >> >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > >> > > >> >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek >: > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > we had no qualifier for FacesContext (in codi, > > >> seam3,...). > > >> > > >> since it > > >> > > >> >> >> used > > >> > > >> >> >> >> to > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > be a common producer, we saw "compatibility issues". > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > however, with a proper documentation (how to veto > one > > of > > >> > > them), > > >> > > >> no > > >> > > >> >> >> user > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > (i'm aware of) had a real issue with it and for the > > >> > majority > > >> > > it > > >> > > >> was > > >> > > >> >> >> >> easier > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > to use (because there wasn't an issue at all). > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > regards, > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > gerhard > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > 2014/1/4 Mark Struberg > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> The question for me is: are there already known > > >> producers > > >> > > for > > >> > > >> it > > >> > > >> >> or > > >> > > >> >> >> is > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> there any spec which introduces this? > > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> In that case a custom qualifier is always a good > idea > > >> imo. > > >> > > >> >> Otherwise > > >> > > >> >> >> we > >
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
t; >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > >> > > >> > @romain: > >> > > >> > you should do the wrapping like you would do it without cdi > >> anyway. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > regards, > >> > > >> > gerhard > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> @gerhard: @Decorator is broken in 85% of the case and doesn't > >> work > >> > > >> >> with producers IIRC > >> > > >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> > > >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> > > >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> > > >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > >> > > >> >> > @romain: > >> > > >> >> > you can use e.g. @Decorator in such special cases or just do > >> the > >> > > >> wrapping > >> > > >> >> > like you would without cdi. > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > regards, > >> > > >> >> > gerhard > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> yes and no, depend what you do of it, the point is if you > >> base > >> > > your > >> > > >> >> >> app on CDI (as much as possible I mean) and it starts to be > >> > > common, > >> > > >> >> >> you can put logic in these producers, typically wrapping of > >> > > >> >> >> requests/responses (can be easier than using filters) and > in > >> > this > >> > > >> case > >> > > >> >> >> this is often not 1-1 replacement. I know it is doable but > >> needs > >> > > to > >> > > >> >> >> update the app and can break "big apps" where you aggregate > >> > > multiple > >> > > >> >> >> parts. > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> Having a namespace should be a best practise IMHO. > >> > > >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > > >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> > > >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> > > >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> > > >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > >> > > >> >> >> > @romain: > >> > > >> >> >> > i don't see an issue here - if you add the > >> ds-servlet-module, > >> > > you > >> > > >> just > >> > > >> >> >> drop > >> > > >> >> >> > your own producers (which overlap and should do the same > >> > > anyway). > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > regards, > >> > > >> >> >> > gerhard > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> >> well in fact I saw a lot of cdi 1.0 app producing http* > >> > objects > >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> > > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> > > >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> > > >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> > > >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : >> > > >> >> > @romain: >> > > >> >> > you can use e.g. @Decorator in such special cases or just do >> the >> > > >> wrapping >> > > >> >> > like you would without cdi. >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > regards, >> > > >> >> > gerhard >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> yes and no, depend what you do of it, the point is if you >> base >> > > your >> > > >> >> >> app on CDI (as much as possible I mean) and it starts to be >> > > common, >> > > >> >> >> you can put logic in these producers, typically wrapping of >> > > >> >> >> requests/responses (can be easier than using filters) and in >> > this >> > > >> case >> > > >> >> >> this is often not 1-1 replacement. I know it is doable but >> needs >> > > to >> > > >> >> >> update the app and can break "big apps" where you aggregate >> > > multiple >> > > >> >> >> parts. >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Having a namespace should be a best practise IMHO. >> > > >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> > > >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> > > >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> > > >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> > > >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : >> > > >> >> >> > @romain: >> > > >> >> >> > i don't see an issue here - if you add the >> ds-servlet-module, >> > > you >> > > >> just >> > > >> >> >> drop >> > > >> >> >> > your own producers (which overlap and should do the same >> > > anyway). >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > regards, >> > > >> >> >> > gerhard >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> well in fact I saw a lot of cdi 1.0 app producing http* >> > objects >> > > >> >> >> >> without qualifier cause it was missing in cdi so conflicts >> > can >> > > >> occurs >> > > >> >> >> >> and are quite common >> > > >> >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> > > >> >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> > > >> >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> > > >> >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> > > >> >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : >> > > >> >> >> >> > we had no qualifier for FacesContext (in codi, >> seam3,...). >> > > >> since it >> > > >> >> >> used >> > > >> >
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
gt; > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >> yes and no, depend what you do of it, the point is if you base > > > your > > > >> >> >> app on CDI (as much as possible I mean) and it starts to be > > > common, > > > >> >> >> you can put logic in these producers, typically wrapping of > > > >> >> >> requests/responses (can be easier than using filters) and in > > this > > > >> case > > > >> >> >> this is often not 1-1 replacement. I know it is doable but > needs > > > to > > > >> >> >> update the app and can break "big apps" where you aggregate > > > multiple > > > >> >> >> parts. > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> Having a namespace should be a best practise IMHO. > > > >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > > >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > > >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > > >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > > >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > > > >> >> >> > @romain: > > > >> >> >> > i don't see an issue here - if you add the > ds-servlet-module, > > > you > > > >> just > > > >> >> >> drop > > > >> >> >> > your own producers (which overlap and should do the same > > > anyway). > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > regards, > > > >> >> >> > gerhard > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> well in fact I saw a lot of cdi 1.0 app producing http* > > objects > > > >> >> >> >> without qualifier cause it was missing in cdi so conflicts > > can > > > >> occurs > > > >> >> >> >> and are quite common > > > >> >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > > >> >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > > >> >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > > >> >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > > >> >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > > > >> >> >> >> > we had no qualifier for FacesContext (in codi, > seam3,...). > > > >> since it > > > >> >> >> used > > > >> >> >> >> to > > > >> >> >> >> > be a common producer, we saw "compatibility issues". > > > >> >> >> >> > however, with a proper documentation (how to veto one of > > > them), > > > >> no > > > >> >> >> user > > > >> >> >> >> > (i'm aware of) had a real issue with it and for the > > majority > > > it > > > >> was > > > >> >> >> >> easier > > > >> >> >> >> > to use (because there wasn't an issue at all). > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > regards, > > > >> >> >> >> > gerhard > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > 2014/1/4 Mark Struberg > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> &
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
>> parts. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Having a namespace should be a best practise IMHO. > > >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > > >> >> >> > @romain: > > >> >> >> > i don't see an issue here - if you add the ds-servlet-module, > > you > > >> just > > >> >> >> drop > > >> >> >> > your own producers (which overlap and should do the same > > anyway). > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > regards, > > >> >> >> > gerhard > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> well in fact I saw a lot of cdi 1.0 app producing http* > objects > > >> >> >> >> without qualifier cause it was missing in cdi so conflicts > can > > >> occurs > > >> >> >> >> and are quite common > > >> >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > > >> >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > > >> >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > > >> >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > > >> >> >> >> > we had no qualifier for FacesContext (in codi, seam3,...). > > >> since it > > >> >> >> used > > >> >> >> >> to > > >> >> >> >> > be a common producer, we saw "compatibility issues". > > >> >> >> >> > however, with a proper documentation (how to veto one of > > them), > > >> no > > >> >> >> user > > >> >> >> >> > (i'm aware of) had a real issue with it and for the > majority > > it > > >> was > > >> >> >> >> easier > > >> >> >> >> > to use (because there wasn't an issue at all). > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > regards, > > >> >> >> >> > gerhard > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > 2014/1/4 Mark Struberg > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> The question for me is: are there already known producers > > for > > >> it > > >> >> or > > >> >> >> is > > >> >> >> >> >> there any spec which introduces this? > > >> >> >> >> >> In that case a custom qualifier is always a good idea imo. > > >> >> Otherwise > > >> >> >> we > > >> >> >> >> >> would face different behaviour on different containers. > They > > >> most > > >> >> >> times > > >> >> >> >> >> behave different... > > >> >> >> >> >> I just would like to avoid possible incompatibilities. And > > for > > >> >> this a > > >> >> >> >> >> Qualifier certainly works great - without much additional > > >> >> complexity. > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> Does all the needed detection + veto really pay
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
t;> >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > >> >> >> >> > we had no qualifier for FacesContext (in codi, seam3,...). > >> since it > >> >> >> used > >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> > be a common producer, we saw "compatibility issues". > >> >> >> >> > however, with a proper documentation (how to veto one of > them), > >> no > >> >> >> user > >> >> >> >> > (i'm aware of) had a real issue with it and for the majority > it > >> was > >> >> >> >> easier > >> >> >> >> > to use (because there wasn't an issue at all). > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > regards, > >> >> >> >> > gerhard > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > 2014/1/4 Mark Struberg > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> The question for me is: are there already known producers > for > >> it > >> >> or > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> >> >> there any spec which introduces this? > >> >> >> >> >> In that case a custom qualifier is always a good idea imo. > >> >> Otherwise > >> >> >> we > >> >> >> >> >> would face different behaviour on different containers. They > >> most > >> >> >> times > >> >> >> >> >> behave different... > >> >> >> >> >> I just would like to avoid possible incompatibilities. And > for > >> >> this a > >> >> >> >> >> Qualifier certainly works great - without much additional > >> >> complexity. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Does all the needed detection + veto really pay off? How do > you > >> >> know > >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> >> are running in an environment which already has such a > producer > >> >> >> >> registered? > >> >> >> >> >> This is not easy to accomplish! > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Thus I'm for keeping it. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> LieGrue, > >> >> >> >> >> strub > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > From: Gerhard Petracek > >> >> >> >> >> >To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org > >> >> >> >> >> >Sent: Saturday, 4 January 2014, 12:57 > >> >> >> >> >> >Subject: Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web? > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >+1 for a veto in case of cdi 1.1. > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >@external producers: > >> >> >> >> >> >we can document it (how users can veto e.g. producers, if > they > >> >> see > >> >> >> any > >> >> >> >> >> >overlap). > >> >> >> >> >> >however, deltaspike shouldn't add complexity just because > >> there > >> >> >> might > >> >> >> >> be a > >> >> >> >> >> >custom producer (for the same). > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >regards, > >> >> >> >> >> >gerhard > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >2014/1/4 Christian Kaltepoth > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> @John: Actually the Servlet module provides more than > what > >> CDI > >> >> 1.1 > >> >> >> >> adds. > >> >> >> >> >> >> For example the event propagation and the recently added > >> >> >> "WebStorage" > >> >> >> >> >> for > >> >> >> >> >> >> the resource loading and so on. So people may want to add > >> the > >> >> >> Servlet > >> >> >> >> >> >> module even in a CDI 1.1 container. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm also +0 for that. Of cause it would be nice to get > rid > >> of > >> >> >> @Web. > >> >> >> >> For > >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> >> CDI 1.1 case we could actually veto our produces as > Thomas > >> >> >> suggested. > >> >> >> >> >> But > >> >> >> >> >> >> what about other portable extensions that may have > producers > >> >> for > >> >> >> >> >> @Default. > >> >> >> >> >> >> Say I'm using CDI 1.0 and also have Solder on the > >> classpath. I > >> >> >> think > >> >> >> >> >> Solder > >> >> >> >> >> >> is still a common dependency of some libraries, correct? > In > >> >> some > >> >> >> >> regard > >> >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> >> >> is nice to have a custom "namespace" for the producers. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014/1/3 Thomas Andraschko > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Because our customers have different servers (tomcat7 > and > >> >> even > >> >> >> 6, > >> >> >> >> >> >> > glassfish, jboss), so it would be a great enhancement > for > >> >> >> product > >> >> >> >> >> >> > development. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > 2014/1/3 John D. Ament > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > If you're in servlet 3.1/CDI 1.1 you don't even need > the > >> >> >> servlet > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > module (so why include it as a dependency?) > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -0 both injections can be different depending on > >> >> containers > >> >> >> >> using > >> >> >> >> >> >> some > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > advanced stuff out of ee but affecting ee lifecycle > >> (at > >> >> >> least > >> >> >> >> in > >> >> >> >> >> >> > tomcat) > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > but your proposal sounds acceptable. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Le 3 janv. 2014 17:58, "Thomas Andraschko" < > >> >> >> >> >> >> > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > a > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > écrit : > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> Hi, > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> IMHO @Web is somehow annoying. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> HttpServlet e.g. is always "web", so @Web is just > a > >> >> >> overhead > >> >> >> >> and > >> >> >> >> >> >> > doesn't > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> look nice. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> Can't we just veto the producers if CDI1.1 is > >> available? > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> The code would be the same with CDI 1.0 + DS, CDI > 1.1 > >> >> >> without > >> >> >> >> or > >> >> >> >> >> >> with > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > DS. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> Regards, > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> Thomas > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> -- > >> >> >> >> >> >> Christian Kaltepoth > >> >> >> >> >> >> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/ > >> >> >> >> >> >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal > >> >> >> >> >> >> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
> >> > be a common producer, we saw "compatibility issues". >> >> >> >> > however, with a proper documentation (how to veto one of them), >> no >> >> >> user >> >> >> >> > (i'm aware of) had a real issue with it and for the majority it >> was >> >> >> >> easier >> >> >> >> > to use (because there wasn't an issue at all). >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > regards, >> >> >> >> > gerhard >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > 2014/1/4 Mark Struberg >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The question for me is: are there already known producers for >> it >> >> or >> >> >> is >> >> >> >> >> there any spec which introduces this? >> >> >> >> >> In that case a custom qualifier is always a good idea imo. >> >> Otherwise >> >> >> we >> >> >> >> >> would face different behaviour on different containers. They >> most >> >> >> times >> >> >> >> >> behave different... >> >> >> >> >> I just would like to avoid possible incompatibilities. And for >> >> this a >> >> >> >> >> Qualifier certainly works great - without much additional >> >> complexity. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Does all the needed detection + veto really pay off? How do you >> >> know >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> are running in an environment which already has such a producer >> >> >> >> registered? >> >> >> >> >> This is not easy to accomplish! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thus I'm for keeping it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> LieGrue, >> >> >> >> >> strub >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > From: Gerhard Petracek >> >> >> >> >> >To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org >> >> >> >> >> >Sent: Saturday, 4 January 2014, 12:57 >> >> >> >> >> >Subject: Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >+1 for a veto in case of cdi 1.1. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >@external producers: >> >> >> >> >> >we can document it (how users can veto e.g. producers, if they >> >> see >> >> >> any >> >> >> >> >> >overlap). >> >> >> >> >> >however, deltaspike shouldn't add complexity just because >> there >> >> >> might >> >> >> >> be a >> >> >> >> >> >custom producer (for the same). >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >regards, >> >> >> >> >> >gerhard >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >2014/1/4 Christian Kaltepoth >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> @John: Actually the Servlet module provides more than what >> CDI >> >> 1.1 >> >> >> >> adds. >> >> >> >> >> >> For example the event propagation and the recently added >> >> >> "WebStorage" >> >> >> >> >> for >> >> >> >> >> >> the resource loading and so on. So people may want to add >> the >> >> >> Servlet >> >> >> >> >> >> module even in a CDI 1.1 container. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm also +0 for that. Of cause it would be nice to get rid >> of >> >> >> @Web. >> >> >> >> For >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> CDI 1.1 case we could actually veto our produces as Thomas >> >> >> suggested. >> >> >> >> >> But >> >> >> >> >> >> what about other portable extensions that may have producers >> >> for >> >> >> >> >> @Default. >> >> >> >> >> >> Say I'm using CDI 1.0 and also have Solder on the >> classpath. I >> >> >> think >> >> >> >> >> Solder >> >> >> >> >> >> is still a common dependency of some libraries, correct? In >> >> some >> >> >> >> regard >> >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> >> >> is nice to have a custom "namespace" for the producers. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014/1/3 Thomas Andraschko >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Because our customers have different servers (tomcat7 and >> >> even >> >> >> 6, >> >> >> >> >> >> > glassfish, jboss), so it would be a great enhancement for >> >> >> product >> >> >> >> >> >> > development. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > 2014/1/3 John D. Ament >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > If you're in servlet 3.1/CDI 1.1 you don't even need the >> >> >> servlet >> >> >> >> >> >> > > module (so why include it as a dependency?) >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> >> >> >> >> > > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -0 both injections can be different depending on >> >> containers >> >> >> >> using >> >> >> >> >> >> some >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > advanced stuff out of ee but affecting ee lifecycle >> (at >> >> >> least >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> >> >> > tomcat) >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > but your proposal sounds acceptable. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Le 3 janv. 2014 17:58, "Thomas Andraschko" < >> >> >> >> >> >> > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > a >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > écrit : >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> Hi, >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> IMHO @Web is somehow annoying. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> HttpServlet e.g. is always "web", so @Web is just a >> >> >> overhead >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> >> >> > doesn't >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> look nice. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> Can't we just veto the producers if CDI1.1 is >> available? >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> The code would be the same with CDI 1.0 + DS, CDI 1.1 >> >> >> without >> >> >> >> or >> >> >> >> >> >> with >> >> >> >> >> >> > > DS. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> Regards, >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> Thomas >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> Christian Kaltepoth >> >> >> >> >> >> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/ >> >> >> >> >> >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal >> >> >> >> >> >> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
it was just one of several possibilities you have. in any case, the special case you mentioned is still easy enough -> there is no issue/blocker imo. regards, gerhard 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > so didnt get your comment on decorators... > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > > @romain: > > you should do the wrapping like you would do it without cdi anyway. > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > > > > > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > > > >> @gerhard: @Decorator is broken in 85% of the case and doesn't work > >> with producers IIRC > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > >> > @romain: > >> > you can use e.g. @Decorator in such special cases or just do the > wrapping > >> > like you would without cdi. > >> > > >> > regards, > >> > gerhard > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > > >> >> yes and no, depend what you do of it, the point is if you base your > >> >> app on CDI (as much as possible I mean) and it starts to be common, > >> >> you can put logic in these producers, typically wrapping of > >> >> requests/responses (can be easier than using filters) and in this > case > >> >> this is often not 1-1 replacement. I know it is doable but needs to > >> >> update the app and can break "big apps" where you aggregate multiple > >> >> parts. > >> >> > >> >> Having a namespace should be a best practise IMHO. > >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > >> >> > @romain: > >> >> > i don't see an issue here - if you add the ds-servlet-module, you > just > >> >> drop > >> >> > your own producers (which overlap and should do the same anyway). > >> >> > > >> >> > regards, > >> >> > gerhard > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> > > >> >> >> well in fact I saw a lot of cdi 1.0 app producing http* objects > >> >> >> without qualifier cause it was missing in cdi so conflicts can > occurs > >> >> >> and are quite common > >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > >> >> >> > we had no qualifier for FacesContext (in codi, seam3,...). > since it > >> >> used > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> > be a common producer, we saw "compatibility issues". > >> >> >> > however, with a proper documentation (how to veto one of them), > no > >> >> user > >> >> >> > (i'm aware of) had a real issue with it and for the majority it > was > >> >> >> easier > >> >> >> > to use (because there wasn't an issue at all). > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > regards, > >> >> >> > gerhard > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 2014/1/4 Mark Struberg > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
so didnt get your comment on decorators... Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > @romain: > you should do the wrapping like you would do it without cdi anyway. > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > >> @gerhard: @Decorator is broken in 85% of the case and doesn't work >> with producers IIRC >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : >> > @romain: >> > you can use e.g. @Decorator in such special cases or just do the wrapping >> > like you would without cdi. >> > >> > regards, >> > gerhard >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau >> > >> >> yes and no, depend what you do of it, the point is if you base your >> >> app on CDI (as much as possible I mean) and it starts to be common, >> >> you can put logic in these producers, typically wrapping of >> >> requests/responses (can be easier than using filters) and in this case >> >> this is often not 1-1 replacement. I know it is doable but needs to >> >> update the app and can break "big apps" where you aggregate multiple >> >> parts. >> >> >> >> Having a namespace should be a best practise IMHO. >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : >> >> > @romain: >> >> > i don't see an issue here - if you add the ds-servlet-module, you just >> >> drop >> >> > your own producers (which overlap and should do the same anyway). >> >> > >> >> > regards, >> >> > gerhard >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > >> >> >> well in fact I saw a lot of cdi 1.0 app producing http* objects >> >> >> without qualifier cause it was missing in cdi so conflicts can occurs >> >> >> and are quite common >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : >> >> >> > we had no qualifier for FacesContext (in codi, seam3,...). since it >> >> used >> >> >> to >> >> >> > be a common producer, we saw "compatibility issues". >> >> >> > however, with a proper documentation (how to veto one of them), no >> >> user >> >> >> > (i'm aware of) had a real issue with it and for the majority it was >> >> >> easier >> >> >> > to use (because there wasn't an issue at all). >> >> >> > >> >> >> > regards, >> >> >> > gerhard >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 2014/1/4 Mark Struberg >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The question for me is: are there already known producers for it >> or >> >> is >> >> >> >> there any spec which introduces this? >> >> >> >> In that case a custom qualifier is always a good idea imo. >> Otherwise >> >> we >> >> >> >> would face different behaviour on different containers. They most >> >> times >> >> >> >> behave different... >> >> >> >> I just would like to avoid possible incompatibilities. And for >> this a >> >> >> >> Qualifier certainly works great - without much additional >> complexity. >> >> >&g
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
@romain: you should do the wrapping like you would do it without cdi anyway. regards, gerhard 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > @gerhard: @Decorator is broken in 85% of the case and doesn't work > with producers IIRC > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > > @romain: > > you can use e.g. @Decorator in such special cases or just do the wrapping > > like you would without cdi. > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > > > > > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > > > >> yes and no, depend what you do of it, the point is if you base your > >> app on CDI (as much as possible I mean) and it starts to be common, > >> you can put logic in these producers, typically wrapping of > >> requests/responses (can be easier than using filters) and in this case > >> this is often not 1-1 replacement. I know it is doable but needs to > >> update the app and can break "big apps" where you aggregate multiple > >> parts. > >> > >> Having a namespace should be a best practise IMHO. > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > >> > @romain: > >> > i don't see an issue here - if you add the ds-servlet-module, you just > >> drop > >> > your own producers (which overlap and should do the same anyway). > >> > > >> > regards, > >> > gerhard > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > > >> >> well in fact I saw a lot of cdi 1.0 app producing http* objects > >> >> without qualifier cause it was missing in cdi so conflicts can occurs > >> >> and are quite common > >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > >> >> > we had no qualifier for FacesContext (in codi, seam3,...). since it > >> used > >> >> to > >> >> > be a common producer, we saw "compatibility issues". > >> >> > however, with a proper documentation (how to veto one of them), no > >> user > >> >> > (i'm aware of) had a real issue with it and for the majority it was > >> >> easier > >> >> > to use (because there wasn't an issue at all). > >> >> > > >> >> > regards, > >> >> > gerhard > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > 2014/1/4 Mark Struberg > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The question for me is: are there already known producers for it > or > >> is > >> >> >> there any spec which introduces this? > >> >> >> In that case a custom qualifier is always a good idea imo. > Otherwise > >> we > >> >> >> would face different behaviour on different containers. They most > >> times > >> >> >> behave different... > >> >> >> I just would like to avoid possible incompatibilities. And for > this a > >> >> >> Qualifier certainly works great - without much additional > complexity. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Does all the needed detection + veto really pay off? How do you > know > >> you > >> >> >> are running in an environment which already has such a producer > >> >> registered? > >> >> >> This is not easy to accomplish! > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Thus I'm for keeping it. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> LieGrue, > >> >> >> strub > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
@gerhard: @Decorator is broken in 85% of the case and doesn't work with producers IIRC Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > @romain: > you can use e.g. @Decorator in such special cases or just do the wrapping > like you would without cdi. > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > >> yes and no, depend what you do of it, the point is if you base your >> app on CDI (as much as possible I mean) and it starts to be common, >> you can put logic in these producers, typically wrapping of >> requests/responses (can be easier than using filters) and in this case >> this is often not 1-1 replacement. I know it is doable but needs to >> update the app and can break "big apps" where you aggregate multiple >> parts. >> >> Having a namespace should be a best practise IMHO. >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : >> > @romain: >> > i don't see an issue here - if you add the ds-servlet-module, you just >> drop >> > your own producers (which overlap and should do the same anyway). >> > >> > regards, >> > gerhard >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau >> > >> >> well in fact I saw a lot of cdi 1.0 app producing http* objects >> >> without qualifier cause it was missing in cdi so conflicts can occurs >> >> and are quite common >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : >> >> > we had no qualifier for FacesContext (in codi, seam3,...). since it >> used >> >> to >> >> > be a common producer, we saw "compatibility issues". >> >> > however, with a proper documentation (how to veto one of them), no >> user >> >> > (i'm aware of) had a real issue with it and for the majority it was >> >> easier >> >> > to use (because there wasn't an issue at all). >> >> > >> >> > regards, >> >> > gerhard >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > 2014/1/4 Mark Struberg >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The question for me is: are there already known producers for it or >> is >> >> >> there any spec which introduces this? >> >> >> In that case a custom qualifier is always a good idea imo. Otherwise >> we >> >> >> would face different behaviour on different containers. They most >> times >> >> >> behave different... >> >> >> I just would like to avoid possible incompatibilities. And for this a >> >> >> Qualifier certainly works great - without much additional complexity. >> >> >> >> >> >> Does all the needed detection + veto really pay off? How do you know >> you >> >> >> are running in an environment which already has such a producer >> >> registered? >> >> >> This is not easy to accomplish! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thus I'm for keeping it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> LieGrue, >> >> >> strub >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > From: Gerhard Petracek >> >> >> >To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org >> >> >> >Sent: Saturday, 4 January 2014, 12:57 >> >> >> >Subject: Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >+1 for a veto in case of cdi 1.1. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >@external producers: >> >> >> >we can document it (how users can veto e.g. producers, if they see >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
@romain: you can use e.g. @Decorator in such special cases or just do the wrapping like you would without cdi. regards, gerhard 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > yes and no, depend what you do of it, the point is if you base your > app on CDI (as much as possible I mean) and it starts to be common, > you can put logic in these producers, typically wrapping of > requests/responses (can be easier than using filters) and in this case > this is often not 1-1 replacement. I know it is doable but needs to > update the app and can break "big apps" where you aggregate multiple > parts. > > Having a namespace should be a best practise IMHO. > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > > @romain: > > i don't see an issue here - if you add the ds-servlet-module, you just > drop > > your own producers (which overlap and should do the same anyway). > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > > > > > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > > > >> well in fact I saw a lot of cdi 1.0 app producing http* objects > >> without qualifier cause it was missing in cdi so conflicts can occurs > >> and are quite common > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> Twitter: @rmannibucau > >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > >> > we had no qualifier for FacesContext (in codi, seam3,...). since it > used > >> to > >> > be a common producer, we saw "compatibility issues". > >> > however, with a proper documentation (how to veto one of them), no > user > >> > (i'm aware of) had a real issue with it and for the majority it was > >> easier > >> > to use (because there wasn't an issue at all). > >> > > >> > regards, > >> > gerhard > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > 2014/1/4 Mark Struberg > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> The question for me is: are there already known producers for it or > is > >> >> there any spec which introduces this? > >> >> In that case a custom qualifier is always a good idea imo. Otherwise > we > >> >> would face different behaviour on different containers. They most > times > >> >> behave different... > >> >> I just would like to avoid possible incompatibilities. And for this a > >> >> Qualifier certainly works great - without much additional complexity. > >> >> > >> >> Does all the needed detection + veto really pay off? How do you know > you > >> >> are running in an environment which already has such a producer > >> registered? > >> >> This is not easy to accomplish! > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Thus I'm for keeping it. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> LieGrue, > >> >> strub > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > From: Gerhard Petracek > >> >> >To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org > >> >> >Sent: Saturday, 4 January 2014, 12:57 > >> >> >Subject: Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web? > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >+1 for a veto in case of cdi 1.1. > >> >> > > >> >> >@external producers: > >> >> >we can document it (how users can veto e.g. producers, if they see > any > >> >> >overlap). > >> >> >however, deltaspike shouldn't add complexity just because there > might > >> be a > >> >> >custom producer (for the same). > >> >> > > >> >> >regards, > >> >> >gerhard > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >2014/1/4 Christian Kaltepoth > >> >> > > >> >> >> @John: Actually the Servlet module provides more than what CDI 1.1 > >> adds. > >> >> >> For example the event propagation and the recently a
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
yes and no, depend what you do of it, the point is if you base your app on CDI (as much as possible I mean) and it starts to be common, you can put logic in these producers, typically wrapping of requests/responses (can be easier than using filters) and in this case this is often not 1-1 replacement. I know it is doable but needs to update the app and can break "big apps" where you aggregate multiple parts. Having a namespace should be a best practise IMHO. Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > @romain: > i don't see an issue here - if you add the ds-servlet-module, you just drop > your own producers (which overlap and should do the same anyway). > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > >> well in fact I saw a lot of cdi 1.0 app producing http* objects >> without qualifier cause it was missing in cdi so conflicts can occurs >> and are quite common >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> Twitter: @rmannibucau >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : >> > we had no qualifier for FacesContext (in codi, seam3,...). since it used >> to >> > be a common producer, we saw "compatibility issues". >> > however, with a proper documentation (how to veto one of them), no user >> > (i'm aware of) had a real issue with it and for the majority it was >> easier >> > to use (because there wasn't an issue at all). >> > >> > regards, >> > gerhard >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014/1/4 Mark Struberg >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> The question for me is: are there already known producers for it or is >> >> there any spec which introduces this? >> >> In that case a custom qualifier is always a good idea imo. Otherwise we >> >> would face different behaviour on different containers. They most times >> >> behave different... >> >> I just would like to avoid possible incompatibilities. And for this a >> >> Qualifier certainly works great - without much additional complexity. >> >> >> >> Does all the needed detection + veto really pay off? How do you know you >> >> are running in an environment which already has such a producer >> registered? >> >> This is not easy to accomplish! >> >> >> >> >> >> Thus I'm for keeping it. >> >> >> >> >> >> LieGrue, >> >> strub >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > From: Gerhard Petracek >> >> >To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org >> >> >Sent: Saturday, 4 January 2014, 12:57 >> >> >Subject: Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >+1 for a veto in case of cdi 1.1. >> >> > >> >> >@external producers: >> >> >we can document it (how users can veto e.g. producers, if they see any >> >> >overlap). >> >> >however, deltaspike shouldn't add complexity just because there might >> be a >> >> >custom producer (for the same). >> >> > >> >> >regards, >> >> >gerhard >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >2014/1/4 Christian Kaltepoth >> >> > >> >> >> @John: Actually the Servlet module provides more than what CDI 1.1 >> adds. >> >> >> For example the event propagation and the recently added "WebStorage" >> >> for >> >> >> the resource loading and so on. So people may want to add the Servlet >> >> >> module even in a CDI 1.1 container. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm also +0 for that. Of cause it would be nice to get rid of @Web. >> For >> >> the >> >> >> CDI 1.1 case we could actually veto our produces as Thomas suggested. >> >> But >> >> >> what about other portable extensions that may have producers for >> >> @Default. >> >> >> Say I'm using CDI 1.0 and also have Solder on the classpath. I think >> >> Solder >> >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
+1 Gerhard! @romain users can easily remove their own producers. It just takes 2 min to remove this code, which is already available in DS then. Maybe another qualifier would be better, too -> @DeltaSpike, DeltaSpikeManaged etc. I really don't like @Web as servlet objects are already related to web. It's the same as you would always use @Inject @Default... in your apps
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
@romain: i don't see an issue here - if you add the ds-servlet-module, you just drop your own producers (which overlap and should do the same anyway). regards, gerhard 2014/1/4 Romain Manni-Bucau > well in fact I saw a lot of cdi 1.0 app producing http* objects > without qualifier cause it was missing in cdi so conflicts can occurs > and are quite common > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > > we had no qualifier for FacesContext (in codi, seam3,...). since it used > to > > be a common producer, we saw "compatibility issues". > > however, with a proper documentation (how to veto one of them), no user > > (i'm aware of) had a real issue with it and for the majority it was > easier > > to use (because there wasn't an issue at all). > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > > > > > 2014/1/4 Mark Struberg > > > >> > >> > >> The question for me is: are there already known producers for it or is > >> there any spec which introduces this? > >> In that case a custom qualifier is always a good idea imo. Otherwise we > >> would face different behaviour on different containers. They most times > >> behave different... > >> I just would like to avoid possible incompatibilities. And for this a > >> Qualifier certainly works great - without much additional complexity. > >> > >> Does all the needed detection + veto really pay off? How do you know you > >> are running in an environment which already has such a producer > registered? > >> This is not easy to accomplish! > >> > >> > >> Thus I'm for keeping it. > >> > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > From: Gerhard Petracek > >> >To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org > >> >Sent: Saturday, 4 January 2014, 12:57 > >> >Subject: Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web? > >> > > >> > > >> >+1 for a veto in case of cdi 1.1. > >> > > >> >@external producers: > >> >we can document it (how users can veto e.g. producers, if they see any > >> >overlap). > >> >however, deltaspike shouldn't add complexity just because there might > be a > >> >custom producer (for the same). > >> > > >> >regards, > >> >gerhard > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >2014/1/4 Christian Kaltepoth > >> > > >> >> @John: Actually the Servlet module provides more than what CDI 1.1 > adds. > >> >> For example the event propagation and the recently added "WebStorage" > >> for > >> >> the resource loading and so on. So people may want to add the Servlet > >> >> module even in a CDI 1.1 container. > >> >> > >> >> I'm also +0 for that. Of cause it would be nice to get rid of @Web. > For > >> the > >> >> CDI 1.1 case we could actually veto our produces as Thomas suggested. > >> But > >> >> what about other portable extensions that may have producers for > >> @Default. > >> >> Say I'm using CDI 1.0 and also have Solder on the classpath. I think > >> Solder > >> >> is still a common dependency of some libraries, correct? In some > regard > >> it > >> >> is nice to have a custom "namespace" for the producers. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2014/1/3 Thomas Andraschko > >> >> > >> >> > Because our customers have different servers (tomcat7 and even 6, > >> >> > glassfish, jboss), so it would be a great enhancement for product > >> >> > development. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > 2014/1/3 John D. Ament > >> >> > > >> >> > > If you're in servlet 3.1/CDI 1.1 you don't even need the servlet > >> >> > > module (so why include it as a dependency?) > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> > > > -0 both injections can be different depending on containers > using > >> >> some > >> >> > > > advanced stuff out of ee but affecting ee lifecycle (at least > in > >> >> > tomcat) > >> >> > > > but your proposal sounds acceptable. > >> >> > > > Le 3 janv. 2014 17:58, "Thomas Andraschko" < > >> >> > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > a > >> >> > > > écrit : > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > >> Hi, > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> IMHO @Web is somehow annoying. > >> >> > > >> HttpServlet e.g. is always "web", so @Web is just a overhead > and > >> >> > doesn't > >> >> > > >> look nice. > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> Can't we just veto the producers if CDI1.1 is available? > >> >> > > >> The code would be the same with CDI 1.0 + DS, CDI 1.1 without > or > >> >> with > >> >> > > DS. > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> Regards, > >> >> > > >> Thomas > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Christian Kaltepoth > >> >> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/ > >> >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal > >> >> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> >
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
well in fact I saw a lot of cdi 1.0 app producing http* objects without qualifier cause it was missing in cdi so conflicts can occurs and are quite common Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014/1/4 Gerhard Petracek : > we had no qualifier for FacesContext (in codi, seam3,...). since it used to > be a common producer, we saw "compatibility issues". > however, with a proper documentation (how to veto one of them), no user > (i'm aware of) had a real issue with it and for the majority it was easier > to use (because there wasn't an issue at all). > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2014/1/4 Mark Struberg > >> >> >> The question for me is: are there already known producers for it or is >> there any spec which introduces this? >> In that case a custom qualifier is always a good idea imo. Otherwise we >> would face different behaviour on different containers. They most times >> behave different... >> I just would like to avoid possible incompatibilities. And for this a >> Qualifier certainly works great - without much additional complexity. >> >> Does all the needed detection + veto really pay off? How do you know you >> are running in an environment which already has such a producer registered? >> This is not easy to accomplish! >> >> >> Thus I'm for keeping it. >> >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> >> >> > >> > From: Gerhard Petracek >> >To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org >> >Sent: Saturday, 4 January 2014, 12:57 >> >Subject: Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web? >> > >> > >> >+1 for a veto in case of cdi 1.1. >> > >> >@external producers: >> >we can document it (how users can veto e.g. producers, if they see any >> >overlap). >> >however, deltaspike shouldn't add complexity just because there might be a >> >custom producer (for the same). >> > >> >regards, >> >gerhard >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >2014/1/4 Christian Kaltepoth >> > >> >> @John: Actually the Servlet module provides more than what CDI 1.1 adds. >> >> For example the event propagation and the recently added "WebStorage" >> for >> >> the resource loading and so on. So people may want to add the Servlet >> >> module even in a CDI 1.1 container. >> >> >> >> I'm also +0 for that. Of cause it would be nice to get rid of @Web. For >> the >> >> CDI 1.1 case we could actually veto our produces as Thomas suggested. >> But >> >> what about other portable extensions that may have producers for >> @Default. >> >> Say I'm using CDI 1.0 and also have Solder on the classpath. I think >> Solder >> >> is still a common dependency of some libraries, correct? In some regard >> it >> >> is nice to have a custom "namespace" for the producers. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014/1/3 Thomas Andraschko >> >> >> >> > Because our customers have different servers (tomcat7 and even 6, >> >> > glassfish, jboss), so it would be a great enhancement for product >> >> > development. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > 2014/1/3 John D. Ament >> >> > >> >> > > If you're in servlet 3.1/CDI 1.1 you don't even need the servlet >> >> > > module (so why include it as a dependency?) >> >> > > >> >> > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > > wrote: >> >> > > > -0 both injections can be different depending on containers using >> >> some >> >> > > > advanced stuff out of ee but affecting ee lifecycle (at least in >> >> > tomcat) >> >> > > > but your proposal sounds acceptable. >> >> > > > Le 3 janv. 2014 17:58, "Thomas Andraschko" < >> >> > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> >> >> > > a >> >> > > > écrit : >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> Hi, >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> IMHO @Web is somehow annoying. >> >> > > >> HttpServlet e.g. is always "web", so @Web is just a overhead and >> >> > doesn't >> >> > > >> look nice. >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> Can't we just veto the producers if CDI1.1 is available? >> >> > > >> The code would be the same with CDI 1.0 + DS, CDI 1.1 without or >> >> with >> >> > > DS. >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> Regards, >> >> > > >> Thomas >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Christian Kaltepoth >> >> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/ >> >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal >> >> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal >> >> >> > >> > >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
we had no qualifier for FacesContext (in codi, seam3,...). since it used to be a common producer, we saw "compatibility issues". however, with a proper documentation (how to veto one of them), no user (i'm aware of) had a real issue with it and for the majority it was easier to use (because there wasn't an issue at all). regards, gerhard 2014/1/4 Mark Struberg > > > The question for me is: are there already known producers for it or is > there any spec which introduces this? > In that case a custom qualifier is always a good idea imo. Otherwise we > would face different behaviour on different containers. They most times > behave different... > I just would like to avoid possible incompatibilities. And for this a > Qualifier certainly works great - without much additional complexity. > > Does all the needed detection + veto really pay off? How do you know you > are running in an environment which already has such a producer registered? > This is not easy to accomplish! > > > Thus I'm for keeping it. > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > > > > From: Gerhard Petracek > >To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org > >Sent: Saturday, 4 January 2014, 12:57 > >Subject: Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web? > > > > > >+1 for a veto in case of cdi 1.1. > > > >@external producers: > >we can document it (how users can veto e.g. producers, if they see any > >overlap). > >however, deltaspike shouldn't add complexity just because there might be a > >custom producer (for the same). > > > >regards, > >gerhard > > > > > > > > > >2014/1/4 Christian Kaltepoth > > > >> @John: Actually the Servlet module provides more than what CDI 1.1 adds. > >> For example the event propagation and the recently added "WebStorage" > for > >> the resource loading and so on. So people may want to add the Servlet > >> module even in a CDI 1.1 container. > >> > >> I'm also +0 for that. Of cause it would be nice to get rid of @Web. For > the > >> CDI 1.1 case we could actually veto our produces as Thomas suggested. > But > >> what about other portable extensions that may have producers for > @Default. > >> Say I'm using CDI 1.0 and also have Solder on the classpath. I think > Solder > >> is still a common dependency of some libraries, correct? In some regard > it > >> is nice to have a custom "namespace" for the producers. > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014/1/3 Thomas Andraschko > >> > >> > Because our customers have different servers (tomcat7 and even 6, > >> > glassfish, jboss), so it would be a great enhancement for product > >> > development. > >> > > >> > > >> > 2014/1/3 John D. Ament > >> > > >> > > If you're in servlet 3.1/CDI 1.1 you don't even need the servlet > >> > > module (so why include it as a dependency?) > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > -0 both injections can be different depending on containers using > >> some > >> > > > advanced stuff out of ee but affecting ee lifecycle (at least in > >> > tomcat) > >> > > > but your proposal sounds acceptable. > >> > > > Le 3 janv. 2014 17:58, "Thomas Andraschko" < > >> > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> > >> > > a > >> > > > écrit : > >> > > > > >> > > >> Hi, > >> > > >> > >> > > >> IMHO @Web is somehow annoying. > >> > > >> HttpServlet e.g. is always "web", so @Web is just a overhead and > >> > doesn't > >> > > >> look nice. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Can't we just veto the producers if CDI1.1 is available? > >> > > >> The code would be the same with CDI 1.0 + DS, CDI 1.1 without or > >> with > >> > > DS. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Regards, > >> > > >> Thomas > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Christian Kaltepoth > >> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/ > >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal > >> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal > >> > > > > >
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
The question for me is: are there already known producers for it or is there any spec which introduces this? In that case a custom qualifier is always a good idea imo. Otherwise we would face different behaviour on different containers. They most times behave different... I just would like to avoid possible incompatibilities. And for this a Qualifier certainly works great - without much additional complexity. Does all the needed detection + veto really pay off? How do you know you are running in an environment which already has such a producer registered? This is not easy to accomplish! Thus I'm for keeping it. LieGrue, strub > > From: Gerhard Petracek >To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org >Sent: Saturday, 4 January 2014, 12:57 >Subject: Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web? > > >+1 for a veto in case of cdi 1.1. > >@external producers: >we can document it (how users can veto e.g. producers, if they see any >overlap). >however, deltaspike shouldn't add complexity just because there might be a >custom producer (for the same). > >regards, >gerhard > > > > >2014/1/4 Christian Kaltepoth > >> @John: Actually the Servlet module provides more than what CDI 1.1 adds. >> For example the event propagation and the recently added "WebStorage" for >> the resource loading and so on. So people may want to add the Servlet >> module even in a CDI 1.1 container. >> >> I'm also +0 for that. Of cause it would be nice to get rid of @Web. For the >> CDI 1.1 case we could actually veto our produces as Thomas suggested. But >> what about other portable extensions that may have producers for @Default. >> Say I'm using CDI 1.0 and also have Solder on the classpath. I think Solder >> is still a common dependency of some libraries, correct? In some regard it >> is nice to have a custom "namespace" for the producers. >> >> >> >> 2014/1/3 Thomas Andraschko >> >> > Because our customers have different servers (tomcat7 and even 6, >> > glassfish, jboss), so it would be a great enhancement for product >> > development. >> > >> > >> > 2014/1/3 John D. Ament >> > >> > > If you're in servlet 3.1/CDI 1.1 you don't even need the servlet >> > > module (so why include it as a dependency?) >> > > >> > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> > > wrote: >> > > > -0 both injections can be different depending on containers using >> some >> > > > advanced stuff out of ee but affecting ee lifecycle (at least in >> > tomcat) >> > > > but your proposal sounds acceptable. >> > > > Le 3 janv. 2014 17:58, "Thomas Andraschko" < >> > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> >> > > a >> > > > écrit : >> > > > >> > > >> Hi, >> > > >> >> > > >> IMHO @Web is somehow annoying. >> > > >> HttpServlet e.g. is always "web", so @Web is just a overhead and >> > doesn't >> > > >> look nice. >> > > >> >> > > >> Can't we just veto the producers if CDI1.1 is available? >> > > >> The code would be the same with CDI 1.0 + DS, CDI 1.1 without or >> with >> > > DS. >> > > >> >> > > >> Regards, >> > > >> Thomas >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Christian Kaltepoth >> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/ >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal >> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal >> > >
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
+1 for a veto in case of cdi 1.1. @external producers: we can document it (how users can veto e.g. producers, if they see any overlap). however, deltaspike shouldn't add complexity just because there might be a custom producer (for the same). regards, gerhard 2014/1/4 Christian Kaltepoth > @John: Actually the Servlet module provides more than what CDI 1.1 adds. > For example the event propagation and the recently added "WebStorage" for > the resource loading and so on. So people may want to add the Servlet > module even in a CDI 1.1 container. > > I'm also +0 for that. Of cause it would be nice to get rid of @Web. For the > CDI 1.1 case we could actually veto our produces as Thomas suggested. But > what about other portable extensions that may have producers for @Default. > Say I'm using CDI 1.0 and also have Solder on the classpath. I think Solder > is still a common dependency of some libraries, correct? In some regard it > is nice to have a custom "namespace" for the producers. > > > > 2014/1/3 Thomas Andraschko > > > Because our customers have different servers (tomcat7 and even 6, > > glassfish, jboss), so it would be a great enhancement for product > > development. > > > > > > 2014/1/3 John D. Ament > > > > > If you're in servlet 3.1/CDI 1.1 you don't even need the servlet > > > module (so why include it as a dependency?) > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > > > wrote: > > > > -0 both injections can be different depending on containers using > some > > > > advanced stuff out of ee but affecting ee lifecycle (at least in > > tomcat) > > > > but your proposal sounds acceptable. > > > > Le 3 janv. 2014 17:58, "Thomas Andraschko" < > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> > > > a > > > > écrit : > > > > > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> IMHO @Web is somehow annoying. > > > >> HttpServlet e.g. is always "web", so @Web is just a overhead and > > doesn't > > > >> look nice. > > > >> > > > >> Can't we just veto the producers if CDI1.1 is available? > > > >> The code would be the same with CDI 1.0 + DS, CDI 1.1 without or > with > > > DS. > > > >> > > > >> Regards, > > > >> Thomas > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > Christian Kaltepoth > Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/ > Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal > GitHub: https://github.com/chkal >
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
@John: Actually the Servlet module provides more than what CDI 1.1 adds. For example the event propagation and the recently added "WebStorage" for the resource loading and so on. So people may want to add the Servlet module even in a CDI 1.1 container. I'm also +0 for that. Of cause it would be nice to get rid of @Web. For the CDI 1.1 case we could actually veto our produces as Thomas suggested. But what about other portable extensions that may have producers for @Default. Say I'm using CDI 1.0 and also have Solder on the classpath. I think Solder is still a common dependency of some libraries, correct? In some regard it is nice to have a custom "namespace" for the producers. 2014/1/3 Thomas Andraschko > Because our customers have different servers (tomcat7 and even 6, > glassfish, jboss), so it would be a great enhancement for product > development. > > > 2014/1/3 John D. Ament > > > If you're in servlet 3.1/CDI 1.1 you don't even need the servlet > > module (so why include it as a dependency?) > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > > wrote: > > > -0 both injections can be different depending on containers using some > > > advanced stuff out of ee but affecting ee lifecycle (at least in > tomcat) > > > but your proposal sounds acceptable. > > > Le 3 janv. 2014 17:58, "Thomas Andraschko" < > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> > > a > > > écrit : > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> IMHO @Web is somehow annoying. > > >> HttpServlet e.g. is always "web", so @Web is just a overhead and > doesn't > > >> look nice. > > >> > > >> Can't we just veto the producers if CDI1.1 is available? > > >> The code would be the same with CDI 1.0 + DS, CDI 1.1 without or with > > DS. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Thomas > > >> > > > -- Christian Kaltepoth Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
Because our customers have different servers (tomcat7 and even 6, glassfish, jboss), so it would be a great enhancement for product development. 2014/1/3 John D. Ament > If you're in servlet 3.1/CDI 1.1 you don't even need the servlet > module (so why include it as a dependency?) > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote: > > -0 both injections can be different depending on containers using some > > advanced stuff out of ee but affecting ee lifecycle (at least in tomcat) > > but your proposal sounds acceptable. > > Le 3 janv. 2014 17:58, "Thomas Andraschko" > a > > écrit : > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> IMHO @Web is somehow annoying. > >> HttpServlet e.g. is always "web", so @Web is just a overhead and doesn't > >> look nice. > >> > >> Can't we just veto the producers if CDI1.1 is available? > >> The code would be the same with CDI 1.0 + DS, CDI 1.1 without or with > DS. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Thomas > >> >
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
If you're in servlet 3.1/CDI 1.1 you don't even need the servlet module (so why include it as a dependency?) On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > -0 both injections can be different depending on containers using some > advanced stuff out of ee but affecting ee lifecycle (at least in tomcat) > but your proposal sounds acceptable. > Le 3 janv. 2014 17:58, "Thomas Andraschko" a > écrit : > >> Hi, >> >> IMHO @Web is somehow annoying. >> HttpServlet e.g. is always "web", so @Web is just a overhead and doesn't >> look nice. >> >> Can't we just veto the producers if CDI1.1 is available? >> The code would be the same with CDI 1.0 + DS, CDI 1.1 without or with DS. >> >> Regards, >> Thomas >>
Re: Servlet Module - Do we really need @Web?
-0 both injections can be different depending on containers using some advanced stuff out of ee but affecting ee lifecycle (at least in tomcat) but your proposal sounds acceptable. Le 3 janv. 2014 17:58, "Thomas Andraschko" a écrit : > Hi, > > IMHO @Web is somehow annoying. > HttpServlet e.g. is always "web", so @Web is just a overhead and doesn't > look nice. > > Can't we just veto the producers if CDI1.1 is available? > The code would be the same with CDI 1.0 + DS, CDI 1.1 without or with DS. > > Regards, > Thomas >
