[cdi-dev] FW: Producer wrapper
rmannibucau at gmail.com
Mon Dec 16 06:54:59 EST 2013
Sure! Thks Arne.
Le 16 déc. 2013 12:52, "Arne Limburg" <arne.limburg at openknowledge.de> a
> I guess, this mail was meant to go to the list ;-)
> Von: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com>
> Datum: Montag, 16. Dezember 2013 12:50
> An: Arne Limburg <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
> 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> 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
>> that bean.
>> 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>:
>> >1. Producer / InjectionTarget might create instances which are wrapped in
>> >2. event observer methods are allowed to be private and thus are not in
>> >the proxies.
>> >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
>> cdi-dev mailing list
>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cdi-dev