On 14 Jun 2009, at 17:37, Pete Muir wrote:
On 13 Jun 2009, at 02:21, Dan Allen wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Stuart, I agree, this is long overdue.
> I took a look at your patch, there seems to be a number of problems
> (System.out.println, changing of SPIs with no changes made to the
> JBoss5 int project at least), and it is essentially a workaround
> for a mistake in the underlying architecture, as a result I would
> prefer to defer this to 299, which does correctly scope all
> components to the relevant JEE module.
> Hmm, I was thinking this was going to get into 2.2 as well...or at
> least 2.2.1. I know that solving problems like this one is much
> easier and cleaner w/ 299 given that we have a chance to start over,
BTW this isn't the point, the point is that 299's design correctly
allows for this, whilst the Seam 2 model doesn't, so without
significant changes to semantics we can't fix it.
> but I worry that there are enough folks that really need this
> capability w/o refactoring the rest of their code. Even with 299 in
> place, if there is any Seam 2 code, users are still going to have
> the same issue (assuming that this problem is baggage that Seam 2
> brings with it).
No, the problem is around incorrect attachment of the servlet
context to the application. Well written modular extensions to 299
won't be dealing with this stuff, so it's not a problem.
> Stuart, would you be willing to work through this piecemeal? That
> will make success much more likely. And this really would be huge
> for Seam 2 if we could get it fixed.
> Dan Allen
> Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
> NOTE: While I make a strong effort to keep up with my email on a
> basis, personal or other work matters can sometimes keep me away
> from my email. If you contact me, but don't hear back for more than
> a week,
> it is very likely that I am excessively backlogged or the message was
> caught in the spam filters. Please don't hesitate to resend a
> message if
> you feel that it did not reach my attention.