October 2014 - cdi-dev - Jboss List Archives

[VOTE] Using @Priority to order events instead of adding a parameter in @Observes

by Antoine Sabot-Durand

To add events ordering feature we have two choices: 1) Use @Priority from common annotation specification (JSR-250) (vote +1) pros: - more consistent with other ordering mechanism we already have in CDI (Interceptors, decorators, Alternatives) - more Java EE consistent cons: - time consumed in JSR 250 MR participation (@Priority must be update to support parameter for target) - as @Priority is not part of Java SE, CDI light on java SE will have to add the jsr250 jar as dependency only to have this annotation (which will make it a little less light) 2) Add a parameter to @Observes annotation to give order to an observer (vote -1) pros: - works out of the box (we can add this property without ask for other specs modification) - avoid two annotations to declare an ordered observer (simpler usage) cons: - less Java EE spirit - could be seen as an inconsistency with the way we order Interceptors, Decorators and Alternatives. ———————————————————— Who can vote? Everybody registered to this ML can vote. All votes will be binding How to vote? Answer this mail and vote +1 (for @Priority) 0 or -1(for parameter in @Observes) Vote will be closed in 72 hours

11 years, 1 month

5
4
0 / 0

Re: [cdi-dev] cdi-dev Digest, Vol 47, Issue 13

by Werner Keil

Interestingly there is no @Priority in Java SE 8 see that JavaDoc: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/javax/annotation/package-summary... Meaning we won't get that one via Java 8 anyway, and it shows, there could be flexibility to pick just the annotations you need for CDI 2 under the right circumstances, too[?] On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:43 PM, <cdi-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org> wrote: > Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cdi-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cdi-dev-owner(a)lists.jboss.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cdi-dev digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [VOTE] Using @Priority to order events instead of adding > a parameter in @Observes (Werner Keil) > 2. Re: [VOTE] Using @Priority to order events instead of adding > a parameter in @Observes (Pete Muir) > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:43:31 +0000 > From: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> > Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] [VOTE] Using @Priority to order events instead > of adding a parameter in @Observes > To: Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com> > Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org> > Message-ID: <A2F18F27-2750-4C0C-8CF0-BD1E50227087(a)redhat.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > No, it is part of the JDK - check out the packages available in your IDE, > or look at the Javadoc. > http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/javax/annotation/package-summary... > < > http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/javax/annotation/package-summary... > > > > We can get an MR no problem, however it is critical IMO that this update > makes it in the JDK in a timely fashion to avoid people having to use the > endorsed dir to upgrade JSR-250 (Antoine mentioned you have to add it as a > dependency, but it?s worse - you have to add it to the endorsed dir). > > > On 28 Oct 2014, at 11:40, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > AFAIK that is not part of the JDK, thus it should make it easier to ask > them for a MR, last happened about a year ago: > https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=250 <https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=250 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com <mailto: > pmuir(a)redhat.com>> wrote: > > I would be +1 if we can get a commitment to update the version of > JSR-250 shipped in the JDK updated as well, otherwise -1 > > > >> On 28 Oct 2014, at 10:13, Werner Keil <werner.keil(a)gmail.com <mailto: > werner.keil(a)gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >> +1 for 1) > >> > >> Unlike @Inject the Maven JAR for JSR-250 is a bit bigger (~20kb) but > there are existing dependencies that are not part of the JDK, most notably > JSR-330. > >> > >> Not sure, if subpackages like "security" or "sql" under 250 matter at > all, if not, we could explore if the ideas for "stripping" libraries > proposed by Oracle may also work for SE/EE. This was discussed by OpenJDK > architects including Mark Reinhold with the EC. So far no real progress on > that, but till this JSR goes final or EE 8 it could work to get > dependencies a bit lighter, too. > >> > >> It is likely, some annotation JSRs not just 250 need overhaul, e.g. to > finally make use of JSR-308, so an MR for 250 could be cumbersome, but > seems much easier here than e.g. bringing JSR-305 back to life;-) > >> > >> Werner > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:58 AM, <cdi-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org > <mailto:cdi-dev-request@lists.jboss.org>> wrote: > >> Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to > >> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> > >> > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev < > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev> > >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > >> cdi-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto: > cdi-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org> > >> > >> You can reach the person managing the list at > >> cdi-dev-owner(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto: > cdi-dev-owner(a)lists.jboss.org> > >> > >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > >> than "Re: Contents of cdi-dev digest..." > >> > >> > >> Today's Topics: > >> > >> 1. Re: microbenchmark for CDI performance (Mohan Radhakrishnan) > >> 2. [VOTE] Using @Priority to order events instead of adding a > >> parameter in @Observes (Antoine Sabot-Durand) > >> 3. No meeting tomorrow (Antoine Sabot-Durand) > >> 4. Updated Invitation: CDI weekly meeting @ Weekly from 18:00 to > >> 19:00 on Wednesday except Wed 1 Oct 18:00, Wed 15 Oct 18:00 or > >> Wed 29 Oct 18:00 (ASD Perso) (antoine(a)sabot-durand.net <mailto: > antoine(a)sabot-durand.net>) > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Message: 2 > >> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:56:14 +0100 > >> From: Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net <mailto: > antoine(a)sabot-durand.net>> > >> Subject: [cdi-dev] [VOTE] Using @Priority to order events instead of > >> adding a parameter in @Observes > >> To: cdi-dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>> > >> Message-ID: <ECAAD9B3-649C-4856-BB24-82AB9EF41763(a)sabot-durand.net > <mailto:ECAAD9B3-649C-4856-BB24-82AB9EF41763@sabot-durand.net>> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > >> > >> To add events ordering feature we have two choices: > >> > >> 1) Use @Priority from common annotation specification (JSR-250) (vote > +1) > >> pros: > >> - more consistent with other ordering mechanism we already have in CDI > (Interceptors, decorators, Alternatives) > >> - more Java EE consistent > >> > >> cons: > >> - time consumed in JSR 250 MR participation (@Priority must be update > to support parameter for target) > >> - as @Priority is not part of Java SE, CDI light on java SE will have > to add the jsr250 jar as dependency only to have this annotation (which > will make it a little less light) > >> > >> 2) Add a parameter to @Observes annotation to give order to an observer > (vote -1) > >> pros: > >> - works out of the box (we can add this property without ask for other > specs modification) > >> - avoid two annotations to declare an ordered observer (simpler usage) > >> > >> cons: > >> - less Java EE spirit > >> - could be seen as an inconsistency with the way we order Interceptors, > Decorators and Alternatives. > >> > >> ???????????????????? > >> > >> Who can vote? Everybody registered to this ML can vote. All votes will > be binding > >> How to vote? Answer this mail and vote +1 (for @Priority) 0 or -1(for > parameter in @Observes) > >> Vote will be closed in 72 hours > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> cdi-dev mailing list > >> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org> > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev < > 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 < > 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/20141028/7a4d9ef6/at... > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)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. > > End of cdi-dev Digest, Vol 47, Issue 13 > *************************************** >

11 years, 1 month

2
1
0 / 0

Updated Invitation: CDI weekly meeting @ Weekly from 18:00 to 19:00 on Wednesday except Wed 1 Oct 18:00, Wed 15 Oct 18:00 or Wed 29 Oct 18:00 (ASD Perso)

by antoine＠sabot-durand.net

This event has been changed. Title: CDI weekly meeting View your event at https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=YmdhdXVtcDdnNjhlM3B.... View your event at https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=YmdhdXVtcDdnNjhlM3B.... View your event at https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=YmdhdXVtcDdnNjhlM3B.... When: Weekly from 18:00 to 19:00 on Wednesday except Wed 1 Oct 18:00, Wed 15 Oct 18:00 or Wed 29 Oct 18:00 Paris (changed) Where: IRC #cdi-dev channel on freenode Calendar: ASD Perso Who: * Antoine Sabot-Durand- organiser * cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Event details: https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=YmdhdXVtcDdnNjhlM3B... Invitation from Google Calendar: https://www.google.com/calendar/ You are receiving this courtesy email at the account cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org because you are an attendee of this event. To stop receiving future notifications for this event, decline this event. Alternatively, you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

No meeting tomorrow

by Antoine Sabot-Durand

Hi guys, I’m on vacation this week, so I won’t be here for our meeting. Antoine

11 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

Re: [cdi-dev] cdi-dev Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5

by Werner Keil

Hi, Where did you meet, France? Hope you can share minutes or outcome with those in the EG who weren't there (probably quite a few) I just flew to help a new client today, so it would have been a bit busy, but if the IRC call is the same time on Monday now, I should be able to join it next week. Werner Keil On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 4:55 PM, <cdi-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org> wrote: > Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cdi-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cdi-dev-owner(a)lists.jboss.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cdi-dev digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Today's meeting cancelled (Antoine Sabot-Durand) > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 14:48:32 +0200 > From: Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net> > Subject: [cdi-dev] Today's meeting cancelled > To: cdi-dev <cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org> > Message-ID: <C3697658-886B-4895-838E-0E8BFD69B4EC(a)sabot-durand.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hi all > > As you know we are in the middle of CDI 2 f2f meeting, so I won't be > available for our IRC meeting. > Remember next week we'll have a meeting dedicated to event workshop. > > Antoine Sabot-Durand > > > ------------------------------ >

11 years, 2 months

3
2
0 / 0

Voting procedure

by Antoine Sabot-Durand

Hi guys, As decided today during the meeting, we should add clear rules regarding voting for CDI choices. I propose we adopt the following rules inspired by Apache Foundation : http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html <http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html> - Vote takes place on this ML - Votes runs during 72 hours - All the community (i.e all people on the ML) should have binding vote (I think it’s a bad idea to instaure a JSPA discrimination) If you have comment please make them ASAP. Without any negative feedback we should start our first vote tomorrow. Antoine

11 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

Yesterday meeting (events) minutes & log

by Antoine Sabot-Durand

Hi all, Thanks for this animated meeting we had yesterday. For those who missed it minutes are here : http://transcripts.jboss.org/meeting/irc.freenode.org/cdi-dev/2014/cdi-de... <http://transcripts.jboss.org/meeting/irc.freenode.org/cdi-dev/2014/cdi-de...> And full log there: http://transcripts.jboss.org/meeting/irc.freenode.org/cdi-dev/2014/cdi-de... <http://transcripts.jboss.org/meeting/irc.freenode.org/cdi-dev/2014/cdi-de...> Antoine

11 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

How about documenting Alternatives on producers ?

by Antonio Goncalves

Hi all, I often use code such as the one below: one bean, two producers and one producer is an alternative (not the bean) : *public class *PrefixProducer { @Produces *public *String *prefixNonAlt *= *"non-alternative"*; @Produces * @Alternative* *public *String *prefixAlt *= *"alternative"*; } I enable the alternative, as usual, by declaring the bean in the beans.xml : <*alternatives*> <*class*>org.agoncal.cdi.PrefixProducer</*class*> </*alternatives*> This works fine, no problem. But I just realized that Intellij IDEA displays the warning "Alternative class expected here". I've looked around, read the spec, the Weld documentation, and didn't find any example of the code above. I think people are unware of this. The only reference of alternative producers I found is in the spec : *5.1.1.2* *An alternative is selected for the bean archive if either:* ** the alternative is a producer method, field or resource, and the bean class that declares the method or field is listed* I think for such easy use cases (i.e PrefixProducer) there is no need to multiply beans, so the code is fine and easy to read. But the code you see around, tend to multiply beans (people think that Alternatives are *only* for beans, not for producers). Shouldn't the spec/Weld documentation mention this case a bit more often, by giving an example ? WDYT ? Antonio

11 years, 2 months

1
2
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-489) NonexistentConversationException thrown at restore view or not?

by Jozef Hartinger (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-489?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.sy... ] Jozef Hartinger commented on CDI-489: ------------------------------------- Yes, it is an outdated Javadoc. Since CDI 1.1 the conversation context is stared for each Servlet request thus it needs to be restored in the beginning of request processing, before JSF takes control. > NonexistentConversationException thrown at restore view or not? > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CDI-489 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-489 > Project: CDI Specification Issues > Issue Type: Clarification > Components: Javadoc and API > Affects Versions: 1.2.Final > Reporter: Vsevolod Golovanov > > The 1.0 spec says in 6.7.4: > {quote}If the propagated conversation cannot be restored, the container must associate the request with a new transient conversation and throw an exception of type javax.enterprise.context.NonexistentConversationException from the restore > view phase of the JSF lifecycle. The application may handle this exception using the JSF ExceptionHandler.{quote} > 1.1 and 1.2 just say: > {quote} > If the propagated conversation cannot be restored, the container must associate the request with a new transient conversation and > throw an exception of type javax.enterprise.context.NonexistentConversationException. > {quote} > Yet the javadoc of NonexistentConversationException for both 1.1 and 1.2 says: > {quote} > If the propagated conversation cannot be restored, the container must associate the request with a new transient conversation and throw an exception of type NonexistentConversationException from the restore view phase of the JSF lifecycle. > {quote} > So is it supposed to be thrown from restore view or not? I assume not. Probably javadoc should be amended. > I'm curious about reasoning behind the change. I tried searching for an explanation but didn't find anything. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.1#6329)

11 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (CDI-489) NonexistentConversationException thrown at restore view or not?

by Vsevolod Golovanov (JIRA)

Vsevolod Golovanov created CDI-489: -------------------------------------- Summary: NonexistentConversationException thrown at restore view or not? Key: CDI-489 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-489 Project: CDI Specification Issues Issue Type: Clarification Components: Javadoc and API Affects Versions: 1.2.Final Reporter: Vsevolod Golovanov The 1.0 spec says in 6.7.4: {quote}If the propagated conversation cannot be restored, the container must associate the request with a new transient conversation and throw an exception of type javax.enterprise.context.NonexistentConversationException from the restore view phase of the JSF lifecycle. The application may handle this exception using the JSF ExceptionHandler.{quote} 1.1 and 1.2 just say: {quote} If the propagated conversation cannot be restored, the container must associate the request with a new transient conversation and throw an exception of type javax.enterprise.context.NonexistentConversationException. {quote} Yet the javadoc of NonexistentConversationException for both 1.1 and 1.2 says: {quote} If the propagated conversation cannot be restored, the container must associate the request with a new transient conversation and throw an exception of type NonexistentConversationException from the restore view phase of the JSF lifecycle. {quote} So is it supposed to be thrown from restore view or not? I assume not. Probably javadoc should be amended. I'm curious about reasoning behind the change. I tried searching for an explanation but didn't find anything. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.1#6329)

11 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

cdi-dev October 2014