I guess, this mail was meant to go to the list ;-)
Von: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com<mailto:rmannibucau@gmail.com>>
Datum: Montag, 16. Dezember 2013 12:50
An: Arne Limburg
<arne.limburg@openknowledge.de<mailto:arne.limburg@openknowledge.de>>
Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Producer wrapper
I think the main issue is to avoid to make extensions hard/long to write (already too
complicated for common stuff IMO) so i dont like this solution.
It is great to have a clean design...it is better to have something usable. CDI needs to
work on the last quickly IMO before adding any feature.
Le 16 déc. 2013 12:38, "Arne Limburg"
<arne.limburg@openknowledge.de<mailto:arne.limburg@openknowledge.de>> a écrit
:
Hi,
A simple solution to this topic would be to state in the spec, that, if an
extension replaces an InjectionTarget or Producer it MUST provide a custom
Implementation of an ObserverMethod for every private observer method of
that bean.
WDYT? Maybe we should discuss this in the meeting this evening?
Regards,
Arne
Am 12.12.13 16:23 schrieb "Mark Struberg" unter
<struberg@yahoo.de<mailto:struberg@yahoo.de>>:
1. Producer / InjectionTarget might create instances which are wrapped in
proxies.
2. event observer methods are allowed to be private and thus are not in
the proxies.
3. extensions are allowed to 'decorate' InjectionTargets and Producers.
This means that we need some unwrap method in the spec, right?
Currently this does not York.
LieGrue,
strub
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org<mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org<mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev