Re: [cdi-dev] [Vote] for CDI-527 / PR 271 allow proxying of classes with non-private final methods

Some comments in line. On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 4:22 PM David Blevins <david.blevins(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Read what I could get my hands on. Unfortunately the JIRA itself has 36 > comments which won’t load/expand in Safari or Chrome. But I think I get > the summary. > Sounds like a not too responsive UI. I wonder if Atlassian has a test for 36 comments. XD > > High level, I agree with both Mark and Martin. > > - Agree with Mark: Where I see this feature being important is in our > EJB/CDI alignment efforts. This appears to be the rare case where the CDI > spec is more strict than the EJB spec and a speed bump in someone’s efforts > to port an EJB application to CDI. For that reason, this to me upgrades > from nice-to-have to we-must-find-a-way. > Yep, and in thinking about past jobs have run into the issue. People don't read every line of a spec, and don't always understand why something stopped working. > > - Agree with Martin: I also strongly dislike the use of beans.xml in any > fashion and system properties even more. Aside from being cumbersome for > users, I’m particularly against setting a trend of using system properties > to bail us out of hard API design issues. This concern trumps the above > and I would -1 this vote as-is. > > That said, I’m not sure if this approach is workable in any way, but here > goes: > > We keep the default rule of beans with final methods being unproxyable > unless explicit action in code is taken and the class is: > > - explicitly produced via @Produces > - added explicitly via an extension > I don't see a reason that the bean manager needs to ignore classes with final methods. More-so, I don't see the strategy as being comprehensible to the typical developer that they need a producer. Sure, for 3PL's you're probably already creating a producer. For cases where I just made my class with a final method, I shouldn't be penalized. Less boilerplate, that's one of the goals right? If so, I don't see why we can't just deal with a final method in a proxy - don't extend it. The gotcha that I still see is around interceptor bindings. They need to be explicitly disallowed on final methods, and big ole warning put in when you have interceptors on classes with final methods. > > Effectively the BeanManager would continue to ignore beans with final > methods as proxyable in a classpath scan, but the application could “go > back” and explicitly put them into the BeanManager as proxyable. > > > Thoughts? Big holes in there? > > > -David > > > On Feb 12, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Antoine Sabot-Durand < > antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > Some EG members (like David Blevins) asked to have until the ned of the > week-end to vote here. > I find interesting to have the more possible input but as the rules were > to end the vote tonight, I wanted to be sure that nobody has any objection > for closing the vote on sunday 11:59pm CET. > > Regards, > > Antoine > > Le ven. 12 févr. 2016 à 17:23, Mark Struberg <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt; a > écrit : > >> Sure, that might probably be a viable way to do it. >> >> Oki, here are the two use cases which we need to solve: >> >> 1.) >> @Produces >> @ApplicationScoped >> public SomeWeirdThirdPartyClassWithFinalMethods createIt() {return …}; >> >> 2.) >> @ApplicationSCoped >> public class MySubclass extends SomeWeirdThirdPartyClassWithFinalMethods >> {} >> >> Any other use case? >> >> Can you please elaborate how your idea will look like? Just a few ideas >> so we can get it running. >> >> txs and LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> PS: Again: I’m NOT interested to get my approach in. All I’m interested >> in is a _solution_ for this real world problem. But there was simply no >> alternative proposed so far… >> >> >> >> > Am 12.02.2016 um 17:12 schrieb Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt;: >> > >> > -1 >> > >> > The problem seems real, but proposed approach doesn't sit right with >> > me. I think it would be better to follow the EJB approach, and add a >> > way to be able to declare a method as "not a business method" (a >> > business method is also a thing in CDI IIRC). >> > >> > For example, e.g. using beans.xml and an annotation. This then allows >> > the spec to consistently treat this public method as not a business >> > method. >> > >> > On 9 February 2016 at 16:36, Antoine Sabot-Durand >> > <antoine(a)sabot-durand.net&gt; wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> There have been a lot of discussion around CDI-527 in the last weeks: >> >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-527 >> >> >> >> Mark proposed a PR: >> >> https://github.com/cdi-spec/cdi/pull/271 >> >> >> >> But we don't agree on adding this feature to the spec. >> >> This vote is to decide if we should add this feature at the spec >> level now, >> >> or not. >> >> Should we vote this feature down, that won't mean it will be >> completely >> >> dropped: it could be implemented as non portable feature in both Spec >> or >> >> even be included as experimental feature in the spec (in annexes) as >> >> describe in the PR comments >> >> Vote starts now, only vote from EG members are binding (but you can >> give >> >> your opinion if not part of the EG) and will last 72 hours. >> >> >> >> You vote with the following values: >> >> +1 : I'm favorable for adding this feature in the spec >> >> -1 : I'm against adding this feature in the spec >> >> 0 : I don't care >> >> >> >> Thank you for your attention and your vote. >> >> >> >> Antoine Sabot-Durand >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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. >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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. >> >> _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.