4:24 p.m.
Some comments in line.
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 4:22 PM David Blevins <david.blevins(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Read what I could get my hands on. Unfortunately the JIRA itself has
36
comments which won’t load/expand in Safari or Chrome. But I think I get
the summary.
Sounds like a not too responsive UI. I wonder if Atlassian has a test for
36 comments. XD
High level, I agree with both Mark and Martin.
- Agree with Mark: Where I see this feature being important is in our
EJB/CDI alignment efforts. This appears to be the rare case where the CDI
spec is more strict than the EJB spec and a speed bump in someone’s efforts
to port an EJB application to CDI. For that reason, this to me upgrades
from nice-to-have to we-must-find-a-way.
Yep, and in thinking about past jobs have run into the issue. People don't
read every line of a spec, and don't always understand why something
stopped working.
- Agree with Martin: I also strongly dislike the use of beans.xml in any
fashion and system properties even more. Aside from being cumbersome for
users, I’m particularly against setting a trend of using system properties
to bail us out of hard API design issues. This concern trumps the above
and I would -1 this vote as-is.
That said, I’m not sure if this approach is workable in any way, but
here
goes:
We keep the default rule of beans with final methods being unproxyable
unless explicit action in code is taken and the class is:
- explicitly produced via @Produces
- added explicitly via an extension
I don't see a reason that the bean manager needs to ignore classes with
final methods. More-so, I don't see the strategy as being comprehensible
to the typical developer that they need a producer. Sure, for 3PL's you're
probably already creating a producer. For cases where I just made my class
with a final method, I shouldn't be penalized.
Less boilerplate, that's one of the goals right? If so, I don't see why we
can't just deal with a final method in a proxy - don't extend it.
The gotcha that I still see is around interceptor bindings. They need to
be explicitly disallowed on final methods, and big ole warning put in when
you have interceptors on classes with final methods.
Effectively the BeanManager would continue to ignore beans with final
methods as proxyable in a classpath scan, but the application could “go
back” and explicitly put them into the BeanManager as proxyable.
Thoughts? Big holes in there?
-David
On Feb 12, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Antoine Sabot-Durand <
antoine(a)sabot-durand.net> wrote:
Hi Guys,
Some EG members (like David Blevins) asked to have until the ned of the
week-end to vote here.
I find interesting to have the more possible input but as the rules were
to end the vote tonight, I wanted to be sure that nobody has any objection
for closing the vote on sunday 11:59pm CET.
Regards,
Antoine
Le ven. 12 févr. 2016 à 17:23, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de> a écrit :
> Sure, that might probably be a viable way to do it.
>
> Oki, here are the two use cases which we need to solve:
>
> 1.)
> @Produces
> @ApplicationScoped
> public SomeWeirdThirdPartyClassWithFinalMethods createIt() {return …};
>
> 2.)
> @ApplicationSCoped
> public class MySubclass extends SomeWeirdThirdPartyClassWithFinalMethods
> {}
>
> Any other use case?
>
> Can you please elaborate how your idea will look like? Just a few ideas
> so we can get it running.
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> PS: Again: I’m NOT interested to get my approach in. All I’m interested
> in is a _solution_ for this real world problem. But there was simply no
> alternative proposed so far…
>
>
>
> > Am 12.02.2016 um 17:12 schrieb Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com>:
> >
> > -1
> >
> > The problem seems real, but proposed approach doesn't sit right with
> > me. I think it would be better to follow the EJB approach, and add a
> > way to be able to declare a method as "not a business method" (a
> > business method is also a thing in CDI IIRC).
> >
> > For example, e.g. using beans.xml and an annotation. This then allows
> > the spec to consistently treat this public method as not a business
> > method.
> >
> > On 9 February 2016 at 16:36, Antoine Sabot-Durand
> > <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> There have been a lot of discussion around CDI-527 in the last weeks:
> >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-527
> >>
> >> Mark proposed a PR:
> >> https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/271
> >>
> >> But we don't agree on adding this feature to the spec.
> >> This vote is to decide if we should add this feature at the spec level
> now,
> >> or not.
> >> Should we vote this feature down, that won't mean it will be completely
> >> dropped: it could be implemented as non portable feature in both Spec
> or
> >> even be included as experimental feature in the spec (in annexes) as
> >> describe in the PR comments
> >> Vote starts now, only vote from EG members are binding (but you can
> give
> >> your opinion if not part of the EG) and will last 72 hours.
> >>
> >> You vote with the following values:
> >> +1 : I'm favorable for adding this feature in the spec
> >> -1 : I'm against adding this feature in the spec
> >> 0 : I don't care
> >>
> >> Thank you for your attention and your vote.
> >>
> >> Antoine Sabot-Durand
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.