in!
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
From: Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
: Thursday, December 27, 2012 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
i agree that we have an un-(/under-)specified area here.
i've pushed the changes since it's currently the only approach
which
works
with both implementations (owb
.
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
From: John D. Ament john.d.am...@gmail.com
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org; Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 12:57 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss ServiceHandler
i
strub...@yahoo.de; deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss ServiceHandler
We proxy abstract classes? Is that mandatory? I would like to be able to skip
javassist as forced dependency.
Le 27 déc
-dev@incubator.apache.org; Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss ServiceHandler
Agreed (separate module since it has a dependency on javassist)
I think abstract classes are a must. I can think of some
strub...@yahoo.de
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss ServiceHandler
compile time would be an option!
It happens that Matt and I
, 2012 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss ServiceHandler
@abstract classes:
i agree with john (in view of more complex queries). that's actually the
only reason why we need DELTASPIKE-113 (for DELTASPIKE-60).
@interceptors:
it works already
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss ServiceHandler
@abstract classes:
i agree with john (in view of more complex queries). that's actually the
only reason why we need DELTASPIKE-113
: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss ServiceHandler
i agree that we have an un-(/under-)specified area here.
i've pushed the changes since it's currently the only approach which
works
with both implementations (owb and weld).
(for now the handling of dependent scoped invocation
@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
Pete,
Regarding interceptors - I think what I have is pretty close to the
interceptor definition, except this should only end up working
7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
Pete,
Regarding interceptors - I think what I have is pretty close to the
interceptor definition, except this should only end up working on a
class/interface (I think?)
Also, why wouldn't
hi john,
that can't be - the described example (/excerpt) is a copy of a working
example (tested with owb and weld).
the only use-case (we have so far) which can't be implemented with std. cdi
mechanisms (due to abstract classes) is DELTASPIKE-60.
@ InvocationHandler as a separated bean (at
Gerhard,
I apologize, I hadn't realized you implemented this feature, considering it
has been assigned to me.
John
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Gerhard Petracek
gerhard.petra...@gmail.com wrote:
hi john,
that can't be - the described example (/excerpt) is a copy of a working
example
Gerhard,
Just so I'm clear, when I was referring to the current implementation, it
was the one shipped with Seam3/Solder:
https://github.com/seam/solder/tree/develop/impl/src/main/java/org/jboss/solder/serviceHandler
It does look like we're doing something very similar by veto'ing the
handler
hi john,
as mentioned before:
@ InvocationHandler as a separated bean (at runtime):
currently i can't see a benefit for DELTASPIKE-60.
regards,
gerhard
2012/12/26 John D. Ament john.d.am...@gmail.com
Gerhard,
Just so I'm clear, when I was referring to the current implementation, it
...@gmail.com
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss ServiceHandler
hi john,
as mentioned before:
@ InvocationHandler as a separated bean (at runtime):
currently i can't see
Gerhard implemented, right?
What option was used in Seam?
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
From: Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113
: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss ServiceHandler
hi john,
as mentioned before:
@ InvocationHandler as a separated bean (at runtime):
currently i can't see a benefit for DELTASPIKE-60.
regards,
gerhard
2012/12/26
, 2012 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
Pete,
Regarding interceptors - I think what I have is pretty close to the
interceptor definition, except this should only end up working on a
class/interface (I think?)
Also, why wouldn't
: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
T wo things about this: First: I don't like from the solder
approach,
because the interface is annotated instead of the
implementation.
Second, if we implement this we should conceptually make
clear
how
?
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
From: John D. Ament john.d.am...@gmail.com
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss ServiceHandler
Pete,
Regarding interceptors - I
deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
T wo things about this: First: I don't like from the solder
approach,
because the interface is annotated instead of the
implementation
- Original Message -
From: Gerhard Petracek
gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and
Discuss
ServiceHandler
if you have
: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss ServiceHandler
T wo things about this: First: I don't like from the solder approach,
because the interface is annotated instead of the implementation.
Second, if we implement this we should conceptually make clear how it
differentiates from
...@openknowledge.de
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
T wo things about this: First: I don't like from the solder approach,
because
] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
T wo things about this: First: I don't like from the solder approach,
because the interface is annotated instead of the implementation.
Second, if we implement this we should conceptually make clear how it
differentiates from
: Gerhard Petracek
gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review
and
Discuss
ServiceHandler
if you have a lot of shared code, you can
extract
it
in
1-n
method/s or
an
abstract
- Original Message -
From: Arne Limburg arne.limb...@openknowledge.de
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
T wo
, December 20, 2012 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
T wo things about this: First: I don't like from the solder approach,
because the interface is annotated instead of the implementation.
Second, if we implement this we should conceptually make
] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
T wo things about this: First: I don't like from the solder
approach,
because the interface is annotated instead of the implementation.
Second, if we implement this we should conceptually make clear how
it
differentiates from Interceptors
] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
T wo things about this: First: I don't like from the solder
approach,
because the interface is annotated instead of the implementation.
Second, if we implement this we should conceptually make clear
how
it
differentiates from
] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and
Discuss
ServiceHandler
if you have a lot of shared code, you can extract
it
in
1-n
method/s or
an
abstract class which is still easier than a new
concept.
at least i haven't seen an use-case which really
needed
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
T wo things about this: First: I don't like from the solder
approach
- Original Message -
From: Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and
Discuss
ServiceHandler
if you
-0.2
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
From: Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
if you have a lot of shared code, you can extract it in
1-n
method/s or
an
abstract class which is still easier than a new concept.
at least i haven't seen an use-case which really needed
- Original Message -
From: Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
if you have a lot of shared code, you can extract
:
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
if you have a lot of shared code, you can extract it in 1-n
method/s or
an
abstract class which is still easier than a new concept.
at least i haven't seen an use-case
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
if you have a lot of shared code, you can extract it in 1-n method/s or
an
abstract class which is still easier than a new concept
:
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
if you have a lot of shared code, you can extract it in 1-n
method/s or
an
abstract class which is still easier than a new concept.
at least i haven't seen an use-case which
gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
if you have a lot of shared code, you can extract it in 1-n
method/s or
an
abstract class which is still
What CDI mechanism would you use instead?
On 5 Mar 2012, at 08:47, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
+0
no -1 because there are use-cases for it.
no +1 because i would use std. cdi mechanisms instead.
regards,
gerhard
2012/3/4 Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
hi john,
the
- Original Message -
From: Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss ServiceHandler
if you have a lot of shared code, you can extract it in 1-n
Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
if you have a lot of shared code, you can extract it in 1-n method/s or
an
abstract class
gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-113] Review and Discuss
ServiceHandler
if you have a lot of shared code, you can extract it in 1-n method/s or
an
abstract class which is still
Hi All
I wanted to bring up the subject of ServiceHandler. I added 113 as a child
of DELTASPIKE-2, looked appropriate but not 100% sure (so please let me
know if you think it's not appropriate as a child). ServiceHandler is a
feature in Solder that allows you to define an interceptor that
hi john,
the sub-task is perfectly fine.
regards,
gerhard
2012/3/4 John D. Ament john.d.am...@gmail.com
Hi All
I wanted to bring up the subject of ServiceHandler. I added 113 as a child
of DELTASPIKE-2, looked appropriate but not 100% sure (so please let me
know if you think it's not
47 matches
Mail list logo
