[cdi-dev] FW: Producer wrapper
arne.limburg at openknowledge.de
Mon Dec 16 06:52:21 EST 2013
I guess, this mail was meant to go to the list ;-)
Von: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com<mailto:rmannibucau at gmail.com>>
Datum: Montag, 16. Dezember 2013 12:50
An: Arne Limburg <arne.limburg at openknowledge.de<mailto:arne.limburg at openknowledge.de>>
Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Producer wrapper
I think the main issue is to avoid to make extensions hard/long to write (already too complicated for common stuff IMO) so i dont like this solution.
It is great to have a clean design...it is better to have something usable. CDI needs to work on the last quickly IMO before adding any feature.
Le 16 déc. 2013 12:38, "Arne Limburg" <arne.limburg at openknowledge.de<mailto:arne.limburg at openknowledge.de>> a écrit :
A simple solution to this topic would be to state in the spec, that, if an
extension replaces an InjectionTarget or Producer it MUST provide a custom
Implementation of an ObserverMethod for every private observer method of
WDYT? Maybe we should discuss this in the meeting this evening?
Am 12.12.13 16:23 schrieb "Mark Struberg" unter <struberg at yahoo.de<mailto:struberg at yahoo.de>>:
>1. Producer / InjectionTarget might create instances which are wrapped in
>2. event observer methods are allowed to be private and thus are not in
>3. extensions are allowed to 'decorate' InjectionTargets and Producers.
>This means that we need some unwrap method in the spec, right?
>Currently this does not York.
>cdi-dev mailing list
>cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org<mailto:cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org<mailto:cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cdi-dev