+1 on creating a separate interface. If
ManagedContext is not a context, I agree with Martin to give it a different
name. How about ManagableState etc?
Many thanks,
Emily
===========================
Emily Jiang
WebSphere Application Server, CDI Development Lead
MP 211, DE3A20, Winchester, Hampshire, England, SO21 2JN
Phone: +44 (0)1962 816278 Internal: 246278
Email: emijiang@uk.ibm.com
Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB
From:
Martin Kouba <mkouba@redhat.com>
To:
cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org,
Date:
19/07/2016 08:28
Subject:
Re: [cdi-dev]
Hierarchy of ManageableContext and Context
Sent by:
cdi-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org
Hi John,
I don't see a problem if we introduce a ManageableContext interface
(with activate/deactivate) and a custom context implements it. In other
words, I don't think it has to be used only for built-in contexts.
Also the context definition is clear (6.2. The Context interface) and
again, if these are two different things then we should not call it a
context at all [1].
Martin
[1]
https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/296#issuecomment-229942823
Dne 18.7.2016 v 13:19 John D. Ament napsal(a):
> All,
>
> I'm starting a discussion thread outside of the PR to avoid folks
on the
> EG not receiving github notifications. I want to drive to get
the
> opinions of the broader EG and use this as feedback on whether or
not we
> change the hierarchy.
>
> I've been against having ManageableContext (MC) extend
> Context/AlterableContext (AC). There's a few reasons. First,
> semantically I can register a context, but I shouldn't be able to
> register a MC. That means from an inheritance standpoint MC
does not
> pass the is-a check on AC. MC may be a composition style, or
nothing at
> all since it may not be associated to any specific thread in the
> future. While we can put in spec verbiage and exceptions to
cover the
> cases where someone does implement MC and try to register it,
> realistically if it's there as a compilation time option, I shouldn't
> get an error if it passes.
>
> I can agree that the bulk of the methods on MC should match AC. That's
> where I introduced a new base class for the two and had MC extend
that.
> The base class provided no behavior, just method signatures. The
second
> key thing for me is in this area. AC is more like a definition,
where
> as MC is a running instance of that definition. Since these
are
> different, it shows that MC doesn't inherit the use-case of the parent
AC.
>
> Third issue I have with extending is that AC is meant to be implemented
> by developers to create custom contexts. Developers aren't intended
to
> implement MC. The container should provide these instances,
since they
> are intended only for built in contexts. We allow developers
who
> implement AC to control their activation, as a result we've already
> provided a means to disassociate a custom AC from any thread.
>
> I want to get others opinions on whether these reasons make sense
and if
> they guide to the same conclusion about not extending AC. For
what its
> worth, I've shown these classes to some of my own developers
to get
> their feedback, who have had to do things like quartz integration
or
> responding to netty requests and activate contexts. The concerns
I
> raise are based on questions they've asked me.
>
> John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev@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@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.
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU