I think that seam-xml needs to ability to programatically add resource (and other) producer fields. My proposed syntax is: <s:EntityManager> <s:producerField/> <s:PersistenceContext unitName="customer" /> <my:CustomerDatasource/> </s:EntityManager> which would be equivalent to: @Produces @PersistenceContext(unitName="main") @CustomerDatasource EntityManager entityManager; This will also support other types of producer fields, such as weld extension generic bean producer fields and primitives: <s:String> <s:producerField/> <my:ApplicationVersion /> <s:value>3.0.0.GA</s:value> </s:String>

On 24/08/2010, at 9:16 PM, Pete Muir wrote: > Agreed, this would be very useful. > > The only (practical) issue I see is that Weld currently doesn't expect AnnotatedTtypes to be respected for EE-style injection (in some/all cases). I suspect that it should (nb. this is large a change in the container integration contract). > > On 24 Aug 2010, at 09:39, Stuart Douglas wrote: > >> I think that seam-xml needs to ability to programatically add resource (and other) producer fields. My proposed syntax is: >> >> <s:EntityManager> >> <s:producerField/> >> <s:PersistenceContext unitName="customer" /> >> <my:CustomerDatasource/> >> </s:EntityManager> >> >> which would be equivalent to: >> >> @Produces >> @PersistenceContext(unitName="main") >> @CustomerDatasource >> EntityManager entityManager; >> >> This will also support other types of producer fields, such as weld extension generic bean producer fields and primitives: >> >> >> <s:String> >> <s:producerField/> >> <my:ApplicationVersion /> >> <s:value>3.0.0.GA</s:value> >> </s:String> > > I think it should be: > > <ee:EntityManager> > <ee:Produces /> > <ee:PersistenceContext unitName="customer" /> > <my:CustomerDatasource/> > </ee:EntityManager> > > What was the reason for introducing the special producerField keyword? It was to distinguish these from normal bean declarations, however @Produces will never be applied directly to a bean class, so that should be enough.

No, it seems silly to force the user to create a class with a field solely so they can then configure it via XML. It will be applied to an existing field internally, but on a class that is part of the seam xml implementation. Stuart On 25/08/2010, at 8:33 PM, Pete Muir wrote: > > On 25 Aug 2010, at 11:01, Stuart Douglas wrote: > >> >> On 24/08/2010, at 9:16 PM, Pete Muir wrote: >> >>> Agreed, this would be very useful. >>> >>> The only (practical) issue I see is that Weld currently doesn't expect AnnotatedTtypes to be respected for EE-style injection (in some/all cases). I suspect that it should (nb. this is large a change in the container integration contract). >>> >>> On 24 Aug 2010, at 09:39, Stuart Douglas wrote: >>> >>>> I think that seam-xml needs to ability to programatically add resource (and other) producer fields. My proposed syntax is: >>>> >>>> <s:EntityManager> >>>> <s:producerField/> >>>> <s:PersistenceContext unitName="customer" /> >>>> <my:CustomerDatasource/> >>>> </s:EntityManager> >>>> >>>> which would be equivalent to: >>>> >>>> @Produces >>>> @PersistenceContext(unitName="main") >>>> @CustomerDatasource >>>> EntityManager entityManager; >>>> >>>> This will also support other types of producer fields, such as weld extension generic bean producer fields and primitives: >>>> >>>> >>>> <s:String> >>>> <s:producerField/> >>>> <my:ApplicationVersion /> >>>> <s:value>3.0.0.GA</s:value> >>>> </s:String> >>> >>> I think it should be: >>> >>> <ee:EntityManager> >>> <ee:Produces /> >>> <ee:PersistenceContext unitName="customer" /> >>> <my:CustomerDatasource/> >>> </ee:EntityManager> >>> >>> What was the reason for introducing the special producerField keyword? >> >> It was to distinguish these from normal bean declarations, however @Produces will never be applied directly to a bean class, so that should be enough. > > Ah, so you aren't applying this to an existing field?