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