[cdi-dev] Full rewrite for CDI 558 / PR 270

Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibucau at gmail.com
Fri Feb 5 10:01:09 EST 2016

Why not making all Annotated* mutable during boot lifecycle?

Would allow to get rid of the annotated root in the modification code, for
instance we could convert:

    type.getMethods().stream().filter(m ->
->event.setAnnotatedType().addToMethod(m, MyInterceptor.BINDING));


    type.getMethods().stream().filter(m ->
m.isAnnotationPresent(Foo.class)).forEach(m ->

or if we don't want to add mutate in the existing types we could use
configurator as root for type type and recreate a Configurator graph
matching annotated graph.

Advatage is first code i a bit awkward in the sense you can call
setAnnotatedType() multiple type (what would happen? only last modification
will be saved? or you have to keep a reference to the configurator once
called which breaks the fluent API provded by streams IMO.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber

2016-02-05 15:24 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine at sabot-durand.net>:

> Hi all,
> Following discussion during last meeting, I rewrote most of my PR for
> builders.
> We now have 2 clean and distinct ways of using them
> 1) in DSL style (with a Configurator interface without build() method)
> public void processAT(@Observes ProcessAnnotatedType<?> pat) {
>   pat.setAnnotatedType().read(pat.getAnnotatedType()).addToType(new
> AnnotationLiteral<MyInterceptor>() {};);
> }
> 2) In classical reusable builder mode (builders extends configurator and
> only add build() method)
> public void processAT(@Observes ProcessAnnotatedType<?> pat) {
>  AnnotatedTypeBuilder atb = Builders.annotatedTypeBuilder();
>  atb.read(pat.getAnnotatedType()).addToType(new
>  AnnotationLiteral<MyInterceptor>() {};);
>   pat.setAnnotatedType(atb.build());
> }
> As Configurators don't have build() method there's no risk that users mix
> them with standard builders.
> For clarity sake, builders are no more available in lifecycle event but in
> Builders class for consistency.
> I'm quite happy with the result, but I'm sure you'll have comment ;). So
> thanks for your feedback
> https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/270
> Antoine
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
> code under the Apache License, Version 2 (
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
> intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20160205/47ea983e/attachment.html 

More information about the cdi-dev mailing list