11:25 a.m.
Hey guys,
thinking more to it here few more remarks/requests:
- as an extension writer think having an explicit build is better than an
implicit one in particular when you manage several built instances. The
fact it is sometimes implicit sometimes explicit has these drawbacks:
-- API starts to be huge for a poor gain
-- you actually don't know what is done more easily if not inline (which is
likely the case for medium/advanced extensions)
- why having Builders class with static methods where we could use the bean
manager as entry point for them. Would be more natural since the BM already
build some instance like AT and easier to find in the IDE and look less
magic.
-- bonus on this one: would also bind the calls to a CDI context which
makes things easier to track and if we speak later of multiple contexts in
the same classloader we wouldn't be broken
wdyt?
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau>
|
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
<http://www.tomitribe.com>
2016-02-05 16:01 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com>:
Why not making all Annotated* mutable during boot lifecycle?
Would allow to get rid of the annotated root in the modification code, for
instance we could convert:
type.getMethods().stream().filter(m ->
m.isAnnotationPresent(Foo.class)).forEach(m
->event.setAnnotatedType().addToMethod(m, MyInterceptor.BINDING));
to
type.getMethods().stream().filter(m ->
m.isAnnotationPresent(Foo.class)).forEach(m ->
m.mutate().add(MyInterceptor.BINDING));
or if we don't want to add mutate in the existing types we could use
configurator as root for type type and recreate a Configurator graph
matching annotated graph.
Advatage is first code i a bit awkward in the sense you can call
setAnnotatedType() multiple type (what would happen? only last modification
will be saved? or you have to keep a reference to the configurator once
called which breaks the fluent API provded by streams IMO.
wdyt?
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
<https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
<http://www.tomitribe.com>
2016-02-05 15:24 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net>
:
> Hi all,
>
> Following discussion during last meeting, I rewrote most of my PR for
> builders.
>
> We now have 2 clean and distinct ways of using them
>
> 1) in DSL style (with a Configurator interface without build() method)
>
> public void processAT(@Observes ProcessAnnotatedType<?> pat) {
> pat.setAnnotatedType().read(pat.getAnnotatedType()).addToType(new
> AnnotationLiteral<MyInterceptor>() {};);
> }
>
>
> 2) In classical reusable builder mode (builders extends configurator and
> only add build() method)
>
> public void processAT(@Observes ProcessAnnotatedType<?> pat) {
> AnnotatedTypeBuilder atb = Builders.annotatedTypeBuilder();
> atb.read(pat.getAnnotatedType()).addToType(new
> AnnotationLiteral<MyInterceptor>() {};);
> pat.setAnnotatedType(atb.build());
> }
>
>
> As Configurators don't have build() method there's no risk that users mix
> them with standard builders.
> For clarity sake, builders are no more available in lifecycle event but
> in Builders class for consistency.
>
> I'm quite happy with the result, but I'm sure you'll have comment ;). So
> thanks for your feedback
>
> https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/270
>
> Antoine
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>