Re: [cdi-dev] do we like to define a DeploymentException type?

Yes, was thinking in the same direction. We would still need to do this container specific detection for CDI-1.0 containers, but at least we would get a well defined behaviour for CDI-1.1. This would take a while until getting picked up though, as most Extensions will also aim to run on CDI-1.0 for a long time ... LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jason Porter<lightguard.jp(a)gmail.com> > To: Mark Struberg<struberg(a)yahoo.de> > Cc: cdi-dev<cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org> > Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 5:31 PM > Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] do we like to define a DeploymentException type? > > Having CDI define (even one) exception would be nice and would make testing > extensions for portability much easier. As it currently stands you have to test > for implementation specific exceptions. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 15, 2012, at 1:48, Mark Struberg<struberg(a)yahoo.de> wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> While reviewing the DeltaSpike MessageBundleExtension, I (again) came to > the point where I didn't knew which Exception to take. >> >> >> It might be nice to have a DeploymentException which indicates that a CDI > Extension detected a logical problem which is _not_ caused by some technical > problems. >> >> E.g. if a certain annotation must not be used in conjunction with another > one. In our case @MessageBundle must only be used on Interfaces. We collect all > those problems during ProcessAnnotatedType and add them as > AfterBeanDiscovery#addDefinitionError. >> >> A well defined DeploymentException could help indicating such > 'logical' problems, wdyt? >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cdi-dev mailing list >> cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev